Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact


battlefield_earth.gif (29507 bytes)

Battlefield Earth

Subliminal Claims Debunked


 

 


What is the difference between subliminal persuation, mind-control and brainwashing?

Basically, nothing. They all three are a way of saying that there exist some kind of magical process able to influence other people’s mind against their will, and they all three have been used to instill irrational fear and prejudice towards unpopular groups. Even though evidence to support any of these three myths have been quite thoroughly debunked, they keep having a potent effect in the mind of an uninformed public who tend to believe such a magical process exists, works, and is being used against unsuspecting victims.

The « technical » difference between brainwashing and mind-control is that in the first case, the victim is being physically restrained while in the other, a combinaison of environmental pressure and suggestion is being used to manipulate him.

A detailed analysis of these two claims is not the subject of the present topic, but can be found otherwise on this web site (see the mind-control threads). Let it be said that studies conducted in the aftermath of the 1950’s red-communist brainwashing craze have shown that there was no such thing as brainwashing EVEN in the case where the perpetraror had an absolute control over the person’s movement and life. As for the mind-control allegation, mostly levied against religious cults in the 70’-80’s, it has likewise undergone a battery of independent tests that reduced it to a mere superstition, believed only by a few anti-cultists who hold on this believe despite evidence to the contrary - much like flat-earther insists they are the ones to be right, no matter the amount of evidences being accumulated against their pet proposition.

In the case of subliminal messages, what is alleged is that simple pictures that do not register on the eyes and that are repeated in relatively close sequences can bring someone to do something he wouldn’t do otherwise.

The basis for this belief is the experiment conducted by James Vicary in 1958, who flashed the words « Eat Popcorn » and « Drink Coke » on the screen every five seconds while a film was playing, which words were invisible to the eyes of the audience as they were flashed for a mere third of a millisecond. Vicary claimed that sales of Cokes increased of 18% and the one of popcorns of 58%.

Now, in 1962, Vicary announced that his experiment was nothing but a fabrication. He never published any formal write up about it and nobody could ever replicate it. In other words, the whole thing was nothing but an hoax. It didn’t prevent, however, the belief to spread around and even to this day there are people who will cite the Vicary’s experiment as a proof for the existence of subliminal persuation.

In a very good article to be found on the Skeptical Inquirer site, Anthony R. Pratkanis, psychology teacher at the University of California, Santa Cruz, cites another experiment that attempted to replicate Vicary’s alleged results :

In one of the more interesting attempted replications, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, in 1958, subliminally flashed the message "Phone Now" 352 times during a popular Sunday night television show called Close-up ("Phone Now" 1958). Telephone usage did not go up during that period. Nobody called the station. When asked to guess the message, viewers sent close to five hundred letters, but not one contained the correct answer. However, almost half of the respondents claimed to be hungry or thirsty during the show. Apparently, they guessed (incorrectly) that the message was aimed at getting them to eat or drink.

Pratkanis goes on to say :

During the past few years, I have been collecting published articles on subliminal processes-research that goes back over a hundred years (Suslowa 1863) and includes more than a hundred articles from the mass media and more than two hundred academic papers on the topic (Pratkanis and Greenwald 1988). In none of these papers is there clear evidence in support of the proposition that subliminal messages influence behavior. Many of the studies fail to find an effect, and those that do either cannot be reproduced or are fatally flawed on one or more methodological grounds, including: the failure to control for subject expectancy and experimenter bias effects, selective reporting of positive over negative findings, lack of appropriate control treatments, internally inconsistent results, unreliable dependent measures, presentation of stimuli in a manner that is not truly subliminal, and multiple experimental confounds specific to each study.

Claims of subliminal persuations keep popping up from time to time. One may say it is almost part and sandry of the paranoid nature of the claim itself – « yeah, sure, in the olden days those guys didn’t really know what they were doing, but NOW, with the technical progress et all, NOW « they » really mastered the techniques to enslave us all with the blink of an eye ».

Other than unverifiable allegations that were most probably just made up by a group of people who hold a grudge against another, however, there is usually nothing to substantiate these claims at all.

In 1990, « Judas Priest », a popular rock band, was put to trial on the accusation that sublimial messages embeded in their song caused the suicide of teenagers Ray Belknap and James Vance. The judge, however, refused to buy this myth and, after having examined the available evidences, rightly dismissed the case. Using Occam’s razor law that says we don’t need an embroiled explanation when a simple one exists, he stated :

The scientific research presented does not establish that subliminal stimuli, even if perceived, may precipitate conduct of this magnitude. There exist other factors which explain the conduct of the deceased independent of the subliminal stimuli."

More recently, in April 2000, Larry Wollersheim, of Factnet, claimed that subliminal messages in favor of Scientology were embedded in the upcoming film, Battlefield Earth, made by John Travolta, a prominent Scientologist. He based his claim on ground of a « credible » witness, but refused to say who it was, then declared that Scientology had uncovered a « new an undectable mean » to create these messages, while failing to provide even a modicus of evidences for this allegation.

The Wollersheim example is a good illustration on how spurious allegations of « subliminal persuation » can be used in an attempt to disparage an hated class, even though there isn’t a shred of evidence to substantiate them. Demand for evidences can be dismissed on the ground of the very conspirational nature of the claim itself. If he can’t reveal the identity of the person making the allegation, it is because of the evil nature of the conspirators. And if the messages can’t be detected, it is because « they » use an extremely sophisticated technology, unbeknown to us poor mortal to this day. Says Pratkanis :

Instead of the scientific method, those accused of subliminal persuasion (mostly advertisers) are subjected to what can be termed the "witch test." During the Middle Ages, one common test of witchcraft was to tie and bind the accused and throw her into a pond. If she floats, she is a witch. If she drowns, then her innocence is affirmed. Protestations by the accused were taken as further signs of guilt.

 (Likewise, a cult member who protest that he is not victim of the cult mind-control and makes his own decision is used by anti-cultists as further sign of the group’s irrestible hold, as this person is said to merely repeat what he has been told to say by the group)

The fact that these subliminal messages cannot be readily identified or seen and that the advertisers deny their use further demonstrates the craftiness of the advertiser. After all, witches are a wiley lot, carefully covering their tracks. It appears that the only way that advertisers can prove their innocence, by the logic of the witch test, is to go out of business at the bottom of the pond, thereby showing that they do not possess the arts of subliminal sorcery.

While journalists and film critics treated Factnet’s allegations with the skepticism and derision they deserved, less informed and more vulnerable people bought it hook and sinker :

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: refuse to be sucked in, but have i already?

<fun4897329847323@aol.com>

 23 May 2000 09:37:01

(Fun4897329847323)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: refuse to be sucked in, but have i already?
Message-ID: <20000523053701.02924.00000648@ng-fv1.aol.com>

im 18, and have visited the church of scientology. twice. anyway, i was just curios and had to find out what it was all about on my on.  They seemed prety normal there, (the staff) but they didnt seem that great either.

I believe that those books and courses are bullshit (ive read What IS Scientology).

But anyway, while i was there, they showed me a movie(short introductory film) i knew i shouldnt have seen it, but i did.  Can someone tell, is it possible ive already been brainwashed but sublimic messeges from the film already? if so, what can i do about it?   Please respond, i need some answers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordaniry proofs. Nearly half a decade after these subliminal claims have become popularized, the claims are still extraordinary, while the proofs are still extraordinarily absent. Claims of subliminal persuation have no basis whatsoever. Anymore than cult mind-control or brainwashing. Or satanic possession, for that matter. But, even though we are well into the years 2000, there are still people willing to believe or make believe in the existence of these old demons.

The times they are changing... In the first millenium, satanic possession. In the second millinium, mind-control/subliminal persuation/brainwashing. In the third millenium... the Psychlo learning machine!


Subliminal Messages - Claims of Subliminal Inflowence - Subliminal Inflowence Debunked - Battlefeild ; Revein Funniest Quots



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless