Television commercials/ if you blink you'll miss them

[John E. Nemo]

First of all, to everyone who's crying a river for poor professor pan....

I, like some other people, come to this site in order to read and share info about bizarre incidents and information.
I'm already aware of what the unwashed masses think, which is why I don't talk to them about these things.

Professor Pan's viewpoints generally mirror what the aforementioned unwashed masses think and I find it annoying.

I also find it annoying that everytime I post something, I can expect Professor Pinhead to come along and try to "correct it".

If I wanted to be told I was wrong, I'd just ask the zombies I work with.

IMHO, The prof serves no purpose other than to annoy and distract.

4. In a related note, if Hugh's completely wrong about the whole "keyword hijacking" thing, why is it that when I google the keyword "tv psyop", the first 4 links are dead links to a company that doesn't exist?

Sarcastic answer: because you don't know how to use the internet properly?

Excuse you, male offspring of a female canine?!?
Would you care to elaborate on this smartass comment?
Are you trying to outdo professor pan's by posting the most useless info you can in this thread?

Or do you honestly believe that there's some sort of an advanced method for typing a fecking keyword for a general search in the Google engine that you could enlighten us with?

If you have a better algorithm, send it to Google.

Sincere answer: Even if every result for "tv psyop" was about fluffy kittens patriotically joining the US Marines, this would in no way, purely logically speaking, prove that Hugh was right or wrong.

When logic fails, one must rigorously intuit.

[John E. Nemo]

Imagine you're sitting in front of the TV, watching Dr Who in 1987, when this happens:

I was in my late teens, and watching an episode of Larry King's show on TV. He was discussing the death of a young boy who had been beaten to death with a baseball bat by some other kids. (Sorry, but I'm fuzzy on the details).

All of a sudden, another image bled through the interview as the mother was describing her grief at the loss of her son -- the image, in sickly green, of someone swinging a baseball bat!

It really freaked me out, to the point where I made some phone calls (this was pre-Internet). CNN's lines were jammed for hours.

I read in the newspaper the next day, or shortly thereafter, that it was a technical glitch -- signal from a baseball game bled-through into the Larry King interview.

It was an extremely bizarre and unsettling synchronicity.

No, that sort of thing used to happen all the time when my mother would run the vaccuum cleaner, while I was watching TV.

It's called "ghost images".

Nothing to see here.
Move along.

(Annoying, isn't it, prof?)

[professorpan]

Professor Pan's viewpoints generally mirror what the aforementioned unwashed masses think and I find it annoying.

You, sir, have obviously not read my posts -- that is truly funny, and the first time I've ever been accused of being "mainstream."

My goal is not to "correct" people. It's to say what I believe. If that happens to contradict what you believe, hey, it's a big board, and I assume most of us are adults who can tolerate a difference of opinion without telling someone to fuck off and die.

And no one is crying tears for me... I'm a big boy. I got scorched in flame wars in the days of Usenet, which make this board seem like a kindergarten playground. So I can take it. You know, rubber and glue...

But I do find the animosity weird and misplaced. Oh, well. Goes with the territory.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Is it just me or do other people think professor pan is the most unfairly maligned poster here?

He's up there, for sure. I love you all, for the record, even Dragon.

[John E. Nemo]

Professor Pan's viewpoints generally mirror what the aforementioned unwashed masses think and I find it annoying.

You, sir, have obviously not read my posts -- that is truly funny, and the first time I've ever been accused of being "mainstream."

My goal is not to "correct" people. It's to say what I believe. If that happens to contradict what you believe, hey, it's a big board, and I assume most of us are adults who can tolerate a difference of opinion without telling someone to fuck off and die.

And no one is crying tears for me... I'm a big boy. I got scorched in flame wars in the days of Usenet, which make this board seem like a kindergarten playground. So I can take it. You know, rubber and glue...

But I do find the animosity weird and misplaced. Oh, well. Goes with the territory.

I'm not the only one who finds your "logic" annoying, prof.
Remember this one from another thread.

oh my, am i starting to do hmw's work here? Professorpan, you put hmw's comments aside, and suggest two less congruous events to be synchronous. and then you have the temerity to state

I dunno, Hugh. Unlike yourself, I don't accept something as factual based only on a theory.

With your logic you should cease calling yourself a professor. And while I appreciate your trying to set up a test for HMW's comments, the lack of effectiveness of the psy-ops would prove nothing. and i think you know that.

I suggest that you go back and read your posts, prof.
Lots of serial rationalism, and attempted negation of points raised.
Your posts are rife with it.

And as to the animosity....you'd feel exactly the same if someone tried to pounce on you everytime you posted something.

It might even make you start to think you were dealing with a professional cynic of the Amazing Randi ilk.

[Telexx]

John E. Nemo -

Definitions of forum on the Web:

A public meeting or assembly for open discussion
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Coming here and hoping the "wrong type" of people won't talk back to you seems pretty fruitless...

Thanks,

Telexx

[John E. Nemo]

I would never expect something so utopian, telexx.

I'm pointing out the annoying habits of a particular poster.

I challenge you to read what the prof writes in each thread.
It is almost always a negation of, or correction of, what someone else has written.

I don't believe in many of the "wicky woo" things that certain posters write about orgone and such.
However I'm also aware that...

A) Dr. Reich was shut down by the govt., so there must have been something to orgone, cloudbusters, etc. that the PTBs found threatening .

B) People have a right to believe what they believe, and while I may debate a point or two myself, I DON'T feel the need to "correct" everything.
I consider it to be anal retentive and annoying.

[Telexx]

'Coming here and hoping the "wrong type" of people won't talk back to you seems pretty fruitless...'

I would never expect something so utopian, telexx.

Yeh, and it would be pretty fucking boring if that's what you found, hey?!

Still - I can see why you'd be pissed however F.O.A.D. will just turn people off - you know that.

Anyway - regarding the 3rd of your points:

3. CNN - Why from June 1999 to March 2000, did CNN employ military specialists in ‘psychological operations’ (Psyops) in their Southeast TV bureau and CNN radio division.

Who did CNN employ?

Thanks,

Telexx

[Telexx]

In and amongst the noise, some interesting signal in this thread...

1- WombaticusR:

[commercials are] actually most effective when you ignore them, apparently. The data is pretty consistent on that.

I remember reading this some years ago in a tabloid newspaper, and then thinking: Evil fuckers! They're just saying this to make us pay more attention...

Later, I came to realise that adverts written using hypnotic language will be much, much more effective if you tranced out when they came on. Do you have any data?

2- Posting Tulpa:

Thought of using Tivo or some other DVR to look? I catch subliminal advos all the time.

When you say 'all the time' what do you mean exactly? Also: when you say 'subliminal advos' - how long are you talking about exactly?:)

3- Jingofever:

In May 2006, GE introduced "One Second Theater," television commercials with additional material included as individual frames in the last second of the ad, for frame-by-frame viewing with digital video recorders.

V.interesting - you'd think that kind of shit was illegal?

4 - Pugzleyca3:

I'd throw out the TV it's mercerism without the empathy...

Thanks,

Telexx

[Wombaticus Rex]

I do have data, I will have to dig back, I came across that working on the last TV article. Krugman's data was the first time that factoid came into circulation.

Here's the article, I'll be back with specifics:

http://www.brainsturbator.com/index.php ... v_science/

[Telexx]

WombaticusR good article. Scary shit... You're a hip-hop man no?

T.V.
It satellite links
Our United States of Unconsciousness
Apathetic therapeutic and extremely addictive
The methadone metronome pumping out
150 channels 24 hours a day
You can flip through all of them
And still there's nothing worth watching.

(Disposable Heroes of Hiphoprisy)

Thanks,

Telexx

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^I am truly proud and inspired by what Micheal Franti has done since then. My wife picked up the latest Spearhead CD a few nights back and it blew me away.

Anyway's, here some info dumpage:

NeuroFact 4: Low Attention Processing

Low attention processing is a well-documented theory developed from neuroscientific ideas by advertising researcher Heath and best covered in his book The Hidden Power of Advertising (2). He picks up on a theory that was offered by Herbert Krugman in the 1960s.

High attention processing is activated at will and is called 'active/explicit' learning in the world of brain science (11). It is the way in which we learnt at school. High attention processing might be used to evaluate price - how much, how does it compare to other products, what is the benefit of buying the cheaper one, etc. We pay attention and make a judgement about whether the product is worth the price.

Low attention processing, according to Heath, is a mixture of conscious and semi-conscious activity. Much of it involves 'implicit' learning - learning that takes place without conscious knowledge. Heath picks up on Krugman's experiments which showed, using EEG technology, that TV is a low involvement medium compared to print. That is, when watching TV, our brains operate on a slower than normal wave pattern and, with each subsequent showing of an ad, the pattern slows further.

Information on TV isn't actively digested as a book would be, where the reader controls the speed of processing and amount of information read.

Significantly, it is now commonly understood by neuroscientists that information entering the memory implicitly (e.g. through TV) has a far greater chance of being retained in long-term memory. It is, therefore, a highly effective way of increasing a set of brand associations.

This has caused a considerable disturbance in the world of advertising testing, which is founded on recall (many ad testing methods such as Millward Brown's Link include recall as a key measure). The problem with recall is that it assumes that the message/memory is taken in explicitly, i.e. consciously.

But if conscious recall isn't as relevant as everyone thought it was, how should we measure communications? Millward Brown's Erik du Plessis has taken Heath on in public about this as it questions the company's advertising testing models. Du Plessis' recent book12 formally addresses the debate - significantly he, too, draws on neuroscientific findings to show how emotions influence memory of advertising. The debate rages on.

Meanwhile, knowing about how the brain processes information does give us guidance on the types of messages that 'work' more effectively than others as well as the media that are suited to each. High involvement messaging is usually required to put across rational, logical or time-sensitive information that needs immediate attention. Typically, print, internet and to a lesser degree radio, are effective (see The Newspaper Marketing Association's new advertising campaign, 'The Attention Channel').Low involvement processing is not active or conscious but can be extremely effective in building long-term associations for a brand. TV is typically processed at low levels of involvement, thus it is well suited to thematic or brand messages that don't require an instant call-to-action.

From here:

http://www.aqr.org.uk/indepth/summer2005/page7.shtml

Reading about Krugman's research was sad, hearing that all the Ad people started with the notion consumers were "rational" and "active" -- and came to find out through experimentation the total opposite was apparently true. Bleaugh.

[professorpan]

I'm pointing out the annoying habits of a particular poster.

I challenge you to read what the prof writes in each thread.
It is almost always a negation of, or correction of, what someone else has written.

I don't believe in many of the "wicky woo" things that certain posters write about orgone and such.
However I'm also aware that...

A) Dr. Reich was shut down by the govt., so there must have been something to orgone, cloudbusters, etc. that the PTBs found threatening .

B) People have a right to believe what they believe, and while I may debate a point or two myself, I DON'T feel the need to "correct" everything.
I consider it to be anal retentive and annoying.

Man, sorry I pushed your buttons, Mr. Nemo.

Anyone taking the time to read my posts (which would take a rather long time) will realize you are talking out of your ass here. I've posted about my own unusual experiences with UFOs, for one thing, and I enjoy discussing the esoteric topics much more than the latest convolution of 9/11 "truth." Your caricature of me as a serial reductionist is so far from the truth it's laughable, and my years of blog posts are easily accessible for further proof.

I can't apologize for disagreeing, but I'm sorry if you think my goal is to "correct." It isn't. It never has been. I say what I think. I try to admit when I'm wrong. I compliment people when I like what they've written, and when I think their ideas are loony (one sea mammal springs to mind), I'll say so. But I don't tell people I disagree with to fuck off and die, that they're liars, or that they are purposely spreading bullshit for some agenda or another.

And that's it.

[jingofever]

I checked out Sir Wombat's post about television and he wants to know about the introduction across the world and offers a link to some dates. Seeing Bhutan at the bottom reminded me of a flurry of articles about that, so at least we can study this example.

BBC article about the coming introduction
Guardian article on aftermath
PBS Frontline site
The Google search I used

And the talk about television putting someone into a 'right brain' mode of thought reminds me in a bad way of the 'elaboration likelihood model' used in persuasion theory. This might not be much different from 'low/high attention processing'.

[orz]

Nomo: this reply is pretty sarcastic but please actually read the words i'm writing and address them, rather than attacking some imaginary "mainstream" person who supports "official stories" or whatever, because that's NOT me and that's NOT what I'm saying!!

unwashed masses

Says a lot about your thinking here. Sheeple am i rite LOL

Sarcastic answer: because you don't know how to use the internet properly?

Would you care to elaborate on this smartass comment?

Ok, sorry, it wasn't very clear... I should have said "because you don't understand how search engines work."

Or do you honestly believe that there's some sort of an advanced method for typing a fecking keyword for a general search in the Google engine

Haha amazing! Funniest thing i've read here for a while.

Yes!

I HONESTLY BELIEVE there's advanced methods for typing a search into google!

Because..... IT'S TRUE!

Guess what? THERE'S EVEN A LINK TITLED "ADVANCED SEARCH" right next to the search button.

So here's your first lesson in advanced googling

- type "tv psyop" in inverted commas! -

First result:

FPF - HENK RUYSSENAARS: Whistle blower leaks UK plans for Iran + ...
Whistle blower leaks UK plans for Iran + German TV psyop. UK leak: FIXING FACTS AROUND THE WAR POLICY FPF: IRAN PSYOP STORY FROM GERMAN ARD TV ...
forpressfound.blogspot.com/2006/03/whistle-blower-leaks-uk-plans-for-iran_27.html - 31k -

The reason i jokingly said you don't know how to use google is that "tv psyop" just isn't a good search string... it's not actually a phrase, it's just two abbreviations. Think about it; there's not many instances where someone would us "tv psyop" in a sentance, thus not many where it would appear on a website, thus not many relevent results. No sinister keyjacking plot here, just that you're searching for a phrase which is vague and not commonly used.

Try googling 'television Psychological operations' then tell me about 'keyword hijacking'

Google is actually a pretty bad search engine these days, but you can still get pretty decent results if you actually use your brain for thinking about what you're searching for as opposed to constructing paranoid fantasies.

When logic fails, one must rigorously intuit.

Yeah but you know... give logic a shot first at least...?