Mind control

[Dna_Rna]

Then why'd you say subliminal messages are effective and that they're precisely what you're talking about?

I'll remind you, since you seem to forget things quickly:

What is the problem? A site containing a date in which a marketing campaign was launched on the public convinces you enough to believe the non possibility of subliminal messagging, and you don't even know the kind i'm talking about. I'm talking about quite sinister things being shown in the kiddie's movies Would you like to know what?

 

[Dna_Rna]

I can't believe linthat hasn't replied to this thread yet.

Also, yes I believe that Mind Control can be done through Media and Drugs. Drugs is the most obvious choice, Media is both scarey and a little more obscure.

Hi. Would you believe me if i told you that reality can be faked?

 

[Moloch]

Hi. Would you believe me if i told you that reality can be faked?

/cue obivous matrix referance

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Dna_Rna, that "popcorn" link is about the guy who INVENTED the term subliminal msgs. So when he says it was a hoax, it was a hoax.
Subliminal mind control in any form is bullshit. Though it is still well established that just watching crap on tv influences your opinion on things wether you think it does or not.

 

[ZoinKs!]

I'm talking about quite sinister things being shown in the kiddie's movies Would you like to know what?

Phallic symbols on Alladin cover art, naked characters in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, the word "SEX" in The Lion King, a nude photo in The Rescuers.

That should cover it well enough.

 

[Dna_Rna]

No! You're all wrong!
It's much worse than you think it is, it's showing completely deviated things while you're sitting on the couch with a bag of popcorn and laughing all the time. And i'm not talking about a simple phallus appearing on screen or the word sex either. I'm talking about showing you things that would normally be reported to the police

 

[Moloch]

No! You're all wrong!
It's much worse than you think it is, it's showing completely deviated things while you're sitting on the couch with a bag of popcorn and laughing all the time. And i'm not talking about a simple phallus appearing on screen or the word sex either. I'm talking about showing you things that would normally be reported to the police

Examples..

 

[ZoinKs!]

 

[Dna_Rna]

Examples..

They show you drug abuse, rape, and other disgusting things Do know the singing and the catchy tunes and stunning scenery in most disney movies, including labyrinth, well, they really brainwash with all that

 

[Dna_Rna]

fool

 

[ZoinKs!]

fool

Funny, I've been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

Edit: and it's considered bad forum etiquette to quote images.

 

[Dna_Rna]

Funny, I've been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

maybe you have been reading my mind

 

[Dna_Rna]

Really, doesn't anyone believe me? If you see the tape i can explain it to you.

 

[Dna_Rna]

Funny, I've been saying the same thing for quite some time now.

Edit: and it's considered bad forum etiquette to quote images.

About the etiquette: sorry.
But really if you had the tape to watch i could do the explaining and you WOULD believe me

 

[ZoinKs!]

You can't read a blank page.

The burden of proof is on you. You've made a wild claim, therefore you must produce evidence to back it up.

A good start would be to provide screenshots of these alleged abhorrent acts plus instructions on what movies and timestamps to find them ourselves.

 

[Thelacky]

LOL

Can a tinfoil hat stop the wife from reading my mind?

 

[Dna_Rna]

You can't read a blank page.

The burden of proof is on you. You've made a wild claim, therefore you must produce evidence to back it up.

A good start would be to provide screenshots of these alleged abhorrent acts plus instructions on what movies and timestamps to find them ourselves.

I cannot provide screenshots because these acts are never shown they are only talked about, or better sung about., and if you'd take the time to look for them you would probably believe me. You can look for them in the Labyrinth, as i've already told you, E.T., the ghostbusers, krull, star wars, the lion king, aladdin, the sword in the stone. Tell me wha you have watched and i can explain it to you?

 

[ZoinKs!]

Star Wars should be a good one; I'm sure most on this forum are quite familiar with it.

Maybe instead of screenies, use an audio clip.

 

[Moloch]

They show you drug abuse, rape, and other disgusting things Do know the singing and the catchy tunes and stunning scenery in most disney movies, including labyrinth, well, they really brainwash with all that

Waiiiiiiit.. since when is rape illegal?

Oh and drugs are legal btw.

25
THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO INGEST ANY
DRUG, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ADDICT
In the early 1920s, Dr. Linder was convicted of selling one morphine tablet and three cocaine
tablets to a patient who was addicted to narcotics. The Supreme Court overturned the
con-viction, declaring that providing an addicted patient with a fairly small amount of drugs is an
acceptable medical practice "when designed temporarily to alleviate an addict's pains." (Linder v.
United States.)
In 1962, the Court heard the case of a man who had been sent to the clink under a California
state law that made being an addict a criminal offense. Once again, the verdict was tossed out,
with the Supremes saying that punishing an addict for being an addict is cruel and unusual and,
thus, unconstitutional. (Robinson v. California.)
Six years later, the Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in Powell v. Texas. A man who
was arrested for being drunk in public said that, because he was an alcoholic, he couldn't help it.
He invoked the Robinson decision as precedent. The Court upheld his conviction because It had
been based on an action (being wasted in public), not on the general condition of his addiction to
booze. Justice White supported this decision, yet for different reasons than the others. In his
concurring opinion, he expanded Robinson:
If it cannot be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use narcotics,... I do not see how
it can constitutionally be a crime to yield to such a compulsion. Punishing an addict for
using drugs convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between the two
crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick with flu or epilepsy, but
permitting punishment for running a fever or having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be
abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law.
Similarly, the chronic alcoholic with an irresistible urge to consume alcohol should not be
punishable for drinking or for being drunk.
Commenting on these cases, Superior Court Judge James R Gray, an outspoken critic of drug
prohibition, has recently written:
What difference is there between alcohol and any other dangerous and sometimes addictive
drug? The primary difference is that one is legal while the others are not. And the US
Supreme Court has said as much on at least two occasions, finding both in 1925 and 1962
that to punish a person for the disease of drug addiction violated the Constitution's
prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. If that is true, why do we continue to
prosecute addicted people for taking these drugs, when it would be unconstitutional to
prosecute them for their addiction?
Judge Gray gets right to the heart of the matter: "In effect, this 'forgotten precedent' says that >ni!
can only be constitutionally punishable for one's conduct, such as assaults, burglary, and driving
under the influence, and not simply for what one puts into one's own body."
If only the Supreme Court and the rest of the justice/law-enforcement complex would apply
these decisions, we'd be living in a saner society.

From 50 things you're not supposed to know by a Russ Kick, whoever that is.
http://www.thememoryhole.org/ his website.

 

[Zaphod]

You're talking about subliminal messages. They don't work.

If you're talking about it in the 'flashing a frame of popcorn in the cinema' sense I would tend to agree that this has been pretty *drink Coke* much debunked. However subliminal perception (that perception can occur without conscious *drink Coke* awareness and have a statistically significant impact on later thought or behaviour) is still much researched in phsycology. From what I've seen the positive evidence is mostly related to our more primal functions or emotional responses, though, and not *drink Coke* more complex behaviour.