I did so in the following paragraph where I described Keyes’ ludicrous claim that his publishers had embedded their own “subliminal” image in his cover photo. I read a report of an expert photo analyst who had painstakingly compared the original negative Keyes submitted with the book’s cover. This macro- and microscopic and pixel-by-pixel electronic comparison showed that there were no consistent differences whatsoever (the trivial and unavoidable imperfections inherent in mass-reproduction were the only differences found, and they were randomly distributed).
What this proves is that Keyes only imagines he sees subliminal images in ads. Q.E.D.
There are so many problems with this assertion, I’m not sure where to begin. Let’s see…
“media orchestrated”? Huh?? What media? What “orchestration”? I certainly don’t recall any wave of talk show or commercial spots on national TV or any full-page ads in major magazines and newspapers opposing Keyes or denying subliminal ads. Do you?
“denial”? Read it again. It was a question, and an extremely rational, fair-minded, and practical question at that. Can you answer it?
“big business”? The question I quoted came from the owner of what I recall to be a fairly small ad agency. I’m no expert, but I imagine there are more small ad agencies than big ones. And though I can’t say for certain, it seems more than likely that at least some of the ads Keyes condemns in his books came from small agencies.
Finally, you’re not one of those crackpots who believes that every denial means its opposite, are you? Then on what grounds do you reject the legitimacy and forthrightness of the question I raised?
(For the record, I do not now nor have I ever had anything to do with any ad agency, nor do I know anyone who has. I have absolutely no financial interests at stake.)
A conspiracy theorist – why am I not surprised? Besides which, was it a subliminal rifle in the photo? I didn’t think so…
Art is made out of non-existent patterns in random visual noise? Boy, it sure is amazing how all those random dots of paint just happened to line up perfectly on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, isn’t it!
Ah, so perhaps you can guide me to the research that refuted the “well-recognized powerful tendency for humans to see non-existent patterns in essentially random scenes”? I eagerly await this chance to correct the errors in my understanding of “current human psychological phenomenon”!