Subliminal images - why and who are the individuals behind it?
You're welcome, Finkelstein!
I just came across an older publication with errata data tipped in (a clean sheet of paper with textual corrections glued into the back of the book). Not my own work, but I used to do that.
You always give us something to think about. A good exchange here.
Like wise CC thanks again for your input.
I like to examine issues with an open and balanced viewpoint from all angles.
Some have said that because they see subliminal images in the WTS literature, this proves the organization is demonic or the WTS was up to psychological trickery.
Personally i don't think they are that smart.
I personally knew a Bethelite in the art department, and he complained/commented that there were some good artists there, by the time their drawings were resized and converted to print, much of their work was lost. I think it likely that some of the 'faces' or whatever were not in the originals but were a result of the conversion to print.
Valid point dropoff
to your pount, Orphan Crow....images 5 and 6 down from the top. I actually bought an original Creation book because of this topic and image to see it for myself after reading a talk by one of Ray Frank's friend, Peter (something) about If Jesus chose this group to represent him then why? What were they publishing? This one is booty banging right there at Calgary and not subliminal and definitely hot off of Rutherford WT presses, Confirmed! It was the big eye opener for me...Slave is a parable and WT not special and therefore no authority over me. Case closed for me. I have the book and happy to shove it in anyone's face who asks why I left.
Ray Franz. (Auto corrected lol)
The rest of it is open to discussion but they started off on false pretense so I could care less if they continued to stick subliminal in at this point. But enjoy the topic!
I mean I enjoy the topic. 😃
finkelstein: Valid point dropoff
Ah, a valid point? What is the point?
dropoff: I personally knew a Bethelite in the art department, and he complained/commented that there were some good artists there, by the time their drawings were resized and converted to print, much of their work was lost.
The "point" that dropoff made was that the original art is sometimes not the same as the printed art.
Dropoff's conclusion: "I think it likely that some of the 'faces' or whatever were not in the originals but were a result of the conversion to print."
That is true. To a small degree. Detail can easily be lost in printing translation if the artist did not take into consideration the next step of the printing process.
However, what that observation does - that the final print was different than the original - is draw attention to the fact that there are steps that occur after the original image is presented that leave prime opportunities for intervention into the image.
Valid point? Yes - it is a point that highlights how easy it would be for an image to be manipulated at some stage in the printing process. It might let the unsuspecting artist who labored over their image off the hook, but it certainly doesn't let off anyone else involved in that image production.