I'm back with more snuff misc.
Scott Griffith
from Joe Christ concerning an inquiry that I made about his opinions and
knowledge of snuff. Here's what he said:
Hi,
I haven't seen anything like that since the one I described. What I
saw was a tape of two dudes who looked like 'bikers': one was having sex
with a woman, while the other took out a circular saw and just started
zipping off her limbs. It was pretty nasty. As far as snuff films
existing...I don't think there's an 'industry', it's just that a few
whack-o's went out and killed a few people 'on-camera', after hearing
about 'snuff films' in the media. Which I don't believe really existed
before that.
thanks,
Joe Christ
So anyways, what do you guys think? I'm going to have to agree with Joe.
From what I've seen and read, it sounds like a good bet that there is no
"industry" by any means. Possibly a few tapes exist and are sold or traded,
but I seriously doubt that there is an "industry." It would simply be too
difficult to have such a "business" because of the difficulty in hiding all
traces. I would say that most incidents of snuff are when sickos tape their
deeds and then someone else gets a hold of them. Final verdict in my eyes?
Industry:no, existence:yes. I hold there till more or better evidence come
to light. Opinions anyone?
Scott "time for something new to research" Griffith
rus...@magic2net.net
Does not a snuff film make.
Please reread the FAQ
Please remove the two extra 2's should read rusty2@m****net.net
******************************************************
Search here before opening mouth and Inserting Feet
http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml or http://www.urbanlegends.com/ or
http://snopes.simplenet.com/ and http://altavista.com/
Ian A. York
NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
>
>Existence of Murders on tape.
>Does not a snuff film make.
>Please reread the FAQ
The waterlilies
Turn red; The video whirs.
Snuff films in springtime.
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
David H. Siegel
>
> In article <7bf8nn$m2d$1...@comet3.magicnet.net>,
> NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
> >
> >Existence of Murders on tape.
> >Does not a snuff film make.
> >Please reread the FAQ
>
> The waterlilies
> Turn red; The video whirs.
> Snuff films in springtime.
Blood on knife on film
Girl's blood like spring sunset sky
Just one more UL
--
David "Sorry, but haiku triggers a reflex" Siegel
dh...@columbia.edu
<Webpage Coming Soonish>
"If I want a world of ambiguity I'll go rent RASHOMON."-Richard Brandt
FrogPrinc9
>
>"Ian A. York" wrote:
>>
>> In article <7bf8nn$m2d$1...@comet3.magicnet.net>,
>> NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Existence of Murders on tape.
>> >Does not a snuff film make.
>> >Please reread the FAQ
>>
>> The waterlilies
>> Turn red; The video whirs.
>> Snuff films in springtime.
>
>Blood on knife on film
>Girl's blood like spring sunset sky
>Just one more UL
>
On topic verses of death;
Cascading folklore.
John "waterfall" Brown
"Secondly, posting to afu isn't a game of Whack-The-Gullible." Phil Edwards
on alt.folklore.urban
H.W.M.
> >David H. Siegel" wrote:
> >"Ian A. York" wrote:
> >> NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Existence of Murders on tape.
> >> >Does not a snuff film make.
> >> >Please reread the FAQ
> >>
> >> The waterlilies
> >> Turn red; The video whirs.
> >> Snuff films in springtime.
> >
> >Blood on knife on film
> >Girl's blood like spring sunset sky
> >Just one more UL
> >
> Snuff films and haiku.
> On topic verses of death;
> Cascading folklore.
Right here by my side
Is a madman with an axe;
Bring a camcorder.
--
Cheers,| The darkness must go down the river of night's dreaming.|
HWM | Flow morphia slow, let the sun and light come streaming.|
==> hen...@GNWmail.com & http://www.softavenue.fi/u/henry.w
David H. Siegel
>
> FrogPrinc9 wrote:
> > >David H. Siegel" wrote:
> > >"Ian A. York" wrote:
> > >> NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >Existence of Murders on tape.
> > >> >Does not a snuff film make.
> > >> >Please reread the FAQ
> > >>
> > >> The waterlilies
> > >> Turn red; The video whirs.
> > >> Snuff films in springtime.
> > >
> > >Blood on knife on film
> > >Girl's blood like spring sunset sky
> > >Just one more UL
> > >
> > Snuff films and haiku.
> > On topic verses of death;
> > Cascading folklore.
>
> Right here by my side
> Is a madman with an axe;
> Bring a camcorder.
>
I drop my hand for my dog
"Humans can lick too."
--
David Siegel
Fangz
snuff film is simply either "a film depicting a murder", or the
distribution of such a film. The UL'ers, however, define it as 'any
murder committed for the express purpose of filming for mass
commercial distribution.'
Hence, we have photographers catching murders on film then selling it
BUT it's not snuff because the photographer had nothing to do with the
killing.
We have deranged individuals like Charles Ng or the Zebra Killers who
kill for the camera BUT that's not snuff because they didn't turn
around and market the tapes.
We have fetishists who frequent snuff web sites and newsgroups
snatching up snuff stories and downloading the infamous Dolcett
series, but this isn't snuff because a market group without the
genuine product doesn't qualify.
We've even had instances where people have been murdered on film then
*someone else* got a hold of the tape and commercially distributed it
but this doesn't qualify because the tape wasn't made specifically for
commercial distribution.
In short, we have every element of the snuff film chain; people
murdered on tape, tape distribution, and a market audience for the
material, but it still doesn't qualify simply because it doesn't
follow the specific chain or definition created by the UL debunkers.
In my opinion, this is simply a matter of nit-picking. It's playing on
semantics to disqualify everything short of opening up the Snuff
Incorporated Video shop and trading shares on the open stock market.
This is like saying that the infamous Babyrape video series doesn't
qualify as child pornography because you can't go into Blockbuster
Video and buy a copy.
Hence, in the broad definition of "snuff film", it does exist, but in
the more narrow definition of the UL crowd (ie. a Video produced for
commercial distribution), snuff films don't exist. Small comfort for
the videotaped victims of Charles Ng and others, but believe whatever
makes you feel happiest.
On Mon, 1 Mar 1999 16:45:17 -0500, "Scott Griffith" <sco...@wwd.net>
wrote:
>Well, I think I'm about done with this snuff stuff. I just got an email
>from Joe Christ concerning an inquiry that I made about his opinions and
>knowledge of snuff. Here's what he said:
>
>Hi,
> I haven't seen anything like that since the one I described. What I
>saw was a tape of two dudes who looked like 'bikers': one was having sex
>with a woman, while the other took out a circular saw and just started
>zipping off her limbs. It was pretty nasty. As far as snuff films
>existing...I don't think there's an 'industry', it's just that a few
>whack-o's went out and killed a few people 'on-camera', after hearing
>about 'snuff films' in the media. Which I don't believe really existed
>before that.
>thanks,
>Joe Christ
>
>
Simon Slavin
"Scott Griffith" <sco...@wwd.net> quoted:
> What I
> saw was a tape of two dudes who looked like 'bikers': one was having sex
> with a woman, while the other took out a circular saw and just started
> zipping off her limbs.
Assuming, for a moment, that such a tape existed, it remains
to be proved that the incident wouldn't have taken place if
no camera had been there. Also, I would prefer to have the
recording viewed by a professional film-editor or FX person
to see if the events could have been faked.
Simon.
--
No junk email please. | What a story !
<http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | I can't wait to embellish it.
| -- Elaine from _Ally McBeal_
Nathan Tenny
proxy.airnews.net>, competing for the first-quarter 1999 Longest Message-Id
award, Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
>In short, we have every element of the snuff film chain; people
>murdered on tape, tape distribution, and a market audience for the
>material, but it still doesn't qualify simply because it doesn't
>follow the specific chain or definition created by the UL debunkers.
>In my opinion, this is simply a matter of nit-picking.
>Hence, in the broad definition of "snuff film", it does exist, but in
>the more narrow definition of the UL crowd (ie. a Video produced for
>commercial distribution), snuff films don't exist. Small comfort for
>the videotaped victims of Charles Ng and others, but believe whatever
>makes you feel happiest.
I'm not quite sure what your point is. Nobody disputes that murderers
have filmed their killings on a number of occasions, and it's small comfort
to the victims that some people don't consider those "snuff films"---but
then again, how much comfort would it be if we did?
In their UL manifestation, snuff films are a pretty well-defined phenomenon;
the tale as passed from mouth to horrified ear is that there are a bunch of
sickos out there murdering people and filming the process so that they can
sell the film. That story has never been shown to be true and has been
convincingly shown to be implausible.
That doesn't mean that some related things---similar events, events that
duplicate part of the legend---don't happen, and it certainly doesn't mean
that they aren't important or that they aren't horrible when they do
happen. But it does mean that snuff films as UL are reasonably debunked,
pending a very convincing bunking. That's not a moral judgement; it's an
observation about a piece of folklore.
NT
--
Nathan Tenny | Words I carry in my pocket, where they
Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA | breed like white mice.
<nten...@qualcomm.com> | - Lawrence Durrell
Ray Depew
>
> I, like many people, have always thought that the definition of a
> snuff film is simply either "a film depicting a murder", or the
> distribution of such a film. The UL'ers, however, define it as 'any
> murder committed for the express purpose of filming for mass
> commercial distribution.'
Very good analysis.
It's true that recordings exist (film, video) of people being killed and
mutilated in gruesome ways. It's true that these recordings are for
sale. In fact, you can sometimes watch these recordings on television
(adolescent boys in particular enjoy watching "World's Mostest Grossest
Car Crashes, Hostage Executions and Police Shootouts"). If Charles Ng's
videos were shown in court as evidence, that would make them a matter of
public record, and something you could obtain for a nominal fee under
the Freedom of Information Act (USA, sorry) -- Ms Ward, feel free to
correct me on this point.
But as Scott's analysis reluctantly admitted, these are not "snuff
films". The very narrow definition exists because of those people who
will breathlessly insist that "snuff films" of the kind outlined in the
narrow definition really do exist. It's a strange and twisted world,
but it's not yet *that* strange and twisted.
Regards
Ray Depew
Laurence Doering
Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
>I, like many people, have always thought that the definition of a
>snuff film is simply either "a film depicting a murder", or the
>distribution of such a film. The UL'ers, however, define it as 'any
>murder committed for the express purpose of filming for mass
>commercial distribution.'
Not exactly. A film would fit the AFU definition if it was
intended for limited distribution. The important part of
the definition addresses the filmmakers intentions -- they
have to be murdering someone for the express purpose of
producing a film that depicts an actual murder, and they
have to be doing it because "there are sickos out there"
who like to watch films knowing they depict genuine, not
staged murders, who will pay for the privilege.
>Hence, we have photographers catching murders on film then selling it
>BUT it's not snuff because the photographer had nothing to do with the
>killing.
Correct. The killing was unrelated to the presence of the camera.
>We have deranged individuals like Charles Ng or the Zebra Killers who
>kill for the camera BUT that's not snuff because they didn't turn
>around and market the tapes.
Yup. Ng et al murdered people because they liked murdering
people, not because they thought they could make money by
selling the videotapes.
>We have fetishists who frequent snuff web sites and newsgroups
>snatching up snuff stories and downloading the infamous Dolcett
>series, but this isn't snuff because a market group without the
>genuine product doesn't qualify.
Well, duh. You can't have a snuff film without someone being
actually killed. Yes, some people like looking at amateurish
cartoons of grotesque torture (the Dolcett pictures) and
talking about snuff films, but so what? Is the fact that
some people talk about angels, and that countless images
of angels exist, proof that angels really do exist?
>We've even had instances where people have been murdered on film then
>*someone else* got a hold of the tape and commercially distributed it
>but this doesn't qualify because the tape wasn't made specifically for
>commercial distribution.
We have? Certainly such a thing would have attracted a good
deal of attention, and been reported widely in the news media.
How about a cite?
>In short, we have every element of the snuff film chain; people
>murdered on tape, tape distribution, and a market audience for the
>material, but it still doesn't qualify simply because it doesn't
>follow the specific chain or definition created by the UL debunkers.
No, it doesn't qualify because NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED
OF MURDERING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE A MOVIE WITH
A REAL MURDER IN IT. In other words, no genuine "snuff film"
has ever been found by law enforcement authorities.
>In my opinion, this is simply a matter of nit-picking. It's playing on
>semantics to disqualify everything short of opening up the Snuff
>Incorporated Video shop and trading shares on the open stock market.
AFU does not have to prove to you that snuff films do not exist.
You're the one asserting they must -- all you have to do is
provide evidence that a snuff film has been found. We'll change
the FAQ, and everyone will be happy.
Where's the evidence?
>This is like saying that the infamous Babyrape video series doesn't
>qualify as child pornography because you can't go into Blockbuster
>Video and buy a copy.
No, it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that child pornography
exists. People have been accused, tried, and convicted of producing
and distributing child pornography. Law enforcement organizations
have quantities of child pornography in their possession. There is
no equivalent evidence for "snuff".
>Hence, in the broad definition of "snuff film", it does exist, but in
>the more narrow definition of the UL crowd (ie. a Video produced for
>commercial distribution), snuff films don't exist.
That's correct.
>Small comfort for the videotaped victims of Charles Ng and others,
>but believe whatever makes you feel happiest.
Is your case really so weak that a peculiarly shameless appeal
to emotion is needed to bolster it? I find it hard to believe
that murder victims would be comforted by your beliefs either.
ljd
Caren Weiner Campbell
>
> "H.W.M." wrote:
> >
> > FrogPrinc9 wrote:
> > > >David H. Siegel" wrote:
> > > >"Ian A. York" wrote:
> > > >> NASC...@200.MPH <rus...@magic2net.net> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Existence of Murders on tape.
> > > >> >Does not a snuff film make.
> > > >> >Please reread the FAQ
> > > >>
> > > >> The waterlilies
> > > >> Turn red; The video whirs.
> > > >> Snuff films in springtime.
> > > >
> > > >Blood on knife on film
> > > >Girl's blood like spring sunset sky
> > > >Just one more UL
> > > >
> > > Snuff films and haiku.
> > > On topic verses of death;
> > > Cascading folklore.
> >
> > Right here by my side
> > Is a madman with an axe;
> > Bring a camcorder.
> >
> Strange noises in night
> I drop my hand for my dog
> "Humans can lick too."
Popular viewing:
Girls killed on film. It's rampant!
Ask Nicolas Cage.
--
Caren Weiner Campbell | I also wouldn't assume he's
Writer and editor | competent because he's got
NYC, USA | a jar full of testicles.
carrie...@mindspring.com | --Chris Webb on AFU
Robert Warinner
: Nobody disputes that murderers
: have filmed their killings on a number of occasions, and it's small comfort
: to the victims that some people don't consider those "snuff films"---but
: then again, how much comfort would it be if we did?
I'd dispute that.
Let's take a look at the murderers that have often been claimed to
have filmed their murders:
Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo: taped rapes and assault of Kristen
French and Tammy Lyn but not their murders.
Lawrence Bittaker and Roy Norris: made an audio tape of the rape and
assault but not the murder of Shirley Ledford.
Leonard Lake and Charles Ng: taped assualt of Kathleen Allen and
Brenda O'Connor but not their murders.
Maybe it's a definitional quibble to differentiate between filmed
brutality and subsequent murder, but I think the distinction is
important to the snuff legend.
Andrew "" Warinner
wari...@xnet.com
wari...@ttd.teradyne.com
http://www.xnet.com/~warinner
Home of the Flying Chickens: http://www.xnet.com/~warinner/chickens.html
Fangz
wrote:
>In article <EF4F0C4A2ECFB00B.A8AB53A6...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
>Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
>
>We have? Certainly such a thing would have attracted a good
>deal of attention, and been reported widely in the news media.
>How about a cite?
>
The infamous NBL series was sold on a CD-Rom purporting to be "the
most shocking photo series ever captured on film." It has since been
distributed all over the newsgroups. If you haven't seen them yet, I'd
be happy to forward you a copy of those pictures.
>>In short, we have every element of the snuff film chain; people
>>murdered on tape, tape distribution, and a market audience for the
>>material, but it still doesn't qualify simply because it doesn't
>>follow the specific chain or definition created by the UL debunkers.
>
>No, it doesn't qualify because NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED
>OF MURDERING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE A MOVIE WITH
>A REAL MURDER IN IT. In other words, no genuine "snuff film"
>has ever been found by law enforcement authorities.
>
>>In my opinion, this is simply a matter of nit-picking. It's playing on
>>semantics to disqualify everything short of opening up the Snuff
>>Incorporated Video shop and trading shares on the open stock market.
>
>AFU does not have to prove to you that snuff films do not exist.
>You're the one asserting they must -- all you have to do is
>provide evidence that a snuff film has been found. We'll change
>the FAQ, and everyone will be happy.
>
>Where's the evidence?
>
>>This is like saying that the infamous Babyrape video series doesn't
>>qualify as child pornography because you can't go into Blockbuster
>>Video and buy a copy.
>
>No, it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that child pornography
>exists. People have been accused, tried, and convicted of producing
>and distributing child pornography. Law enforcement organizations
>have quantities of child pornography in their possession. There is
>no equivalent evidence for "snuff".
>
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My posting was in reference to the
DEFINITION of a snuff film. Many people define a snuff film to be,
simply, a film that depicts an actual murder. Intent to distribute is
irrelevant to that definition. For example, child pornography is still
child pornography whether it is distributed or not, and regardless of
whether the person videotaping it is committing the act for th camera
or not. If we subjected Child pornography to the same restricted
definition that the AFU uses for Snuff films, a videotape made of
someone molesting a child would not be child pornography if the person
was going to rape the kid regardless. Hence, my point was, simply,
that the existence of snuff films depends soley upon your personal
definition of snuff films. Since none of my dictionaries contain a
definition for snuff film, and since opinion varies from person to
person, I certainly think that the definition itself is open for
debate and personal interpretation.
>>Hence, in the broad definition of "snuff film", it does exist, but in
>>the more narrow definition of the UL crowd (ie. a Video produced for
>>commercial distribution), snuff films don't exist.
>
>That's correct.
That was my sole point.
>
>>Small comfort for the videotaped victims of Charles Ng and others,
>>but believe whatever makes you feel happiest.
>
>Is your case really so weak that a peculiarly shameless appeal
>to emotion is needed to bolster it? I find it hard to believe
>that murder victims would be comforted by your beliefs either.
>
Emotion and academics don't mix. You may have interpreted it as an
appeal to emotion but I actually wrote it to point out that the entire
discussion is simply a trivial discussion of semantics that I don't
take too seriously. (ie. Choosing one definition over another isn't
going to change the what is being defined. A rose by any other
name....)
>
>ljd
Don Whittington
>
> In their UL manifestation, snuff films are a pretty well-defined phenomenon;
> the tale as passed from mouth to horrified ear is that there are a bunch of
> sickos out there murdering people and filming the process so that they can
> sell the film. That story has never been shown to be true and has been
> convincingly shown to be implausible.
>
Actually, I've always thought that definition too wide. The only version
I ever heard before afu was that a snuff film was specifically a "porno"
film and that the actual murder took place as the final goad to
ejaculation. And that this was produced (the version I heard said the
film was made in Mexico) specifically to titillate a very specific, jaded
section of the porno watching public.
Don "otherwise, I understand they sell snuff at 7-11" Whittington
--
"No more than my teaching you to give a blowjob would make me
Bill Clinton."--JoAnne Schmitz
Becca Ward
> Car Crashes, Hostage Executions and Police Shootouts"). If Charles Ng's
> videos were shown in court as evidence, that would make them a matter of
> public record, and something you could obtain for a nominal fee under
> the Freedom of Information Act (USA, sorry) -- Ms Ward, feel free to
> correct me on this point.
You're close enough for horseshoes. FOIA laws (federal and state)
_generally_ apply to executive branch agencies. Things that are contained
in court records (assuming they aren't filed under seal) are _generally_
available simply by going to the courthouse and requesting it. It's
considerably less formal (in every court I've had to do it in, anyway)
than a FOIA request.
Some courts have forms you fill out, some will simply take a written
letter (if you're out of town). All will require payment of a fee for
copying. If it's an old case, the records are likely in storage
somewhere, so sometimes you have to wait to get your copies.
Becca Ward
--
[C]ows are essentially unknowable[.] -- Don Whittington
j...@radix.ignorethis.net
: I, like many people, have always thought that the definition of a
: snuff film is simply either "a film depicting a murder", or the
: distribution of such a film.
I thought is was a film where people take snuff. The International Chinese
Snuff Bottle Society at http://www.snuffbottle.org/ might be able
to clarify the matter.
Laurence Doering
Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
>On 2 Mar 1999 18:33:34 -0500, l...@mail.bcpl.net (Laurence Doering)
>wrote:
>
>>deal of attention, and been reported widely in the news media.
>>How about a cite?
>
>The infamous NBL series was sold on a CD-Rom purporting to be "the
>most shocking photo series ever captured on film." It has since been
>distributed all over the newsgroups. If you haven't seen them yet, I'd
>be happy to forward you a copy of those pictures.
I assume you're talking about the photo series that shows a
woman and man playing around with the remains of her biker
ex-boyfriend. If so, that's
a) not a film
b) a depiction of mutilation of a corpse, not of a murder
c) not distributed solely for profit, since the photo series
was available for free in various newsgroups (as you say), and
was also on a number of websites for quite a while.
There are numerous semi-scrupulous companies that charge for
compilations of information you can get free from other sources.
Does that make the information commercial content?
[...]
>>>Fangz wrote:
>>
>>>This is like saying that the infamous Babyrape video series doesn't
>>>qualify as child pornography because you can't go into Blockbuster
>>>Video and buy a copy.
>>
>>I wrote:
>>No, it isn't. There is plenty of evidence that child pornography
>>exists. People have been accused, tried, and convicted of producing
>>and distributing child pornography. Law enforcement organizations
>>have quantities of child pornography in their possession. There is
>>no equivalent evidence for "snuff".
>>
>Fangz wrote:
>Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. My posting was in reference to the
>DEFINITION of a snuff film. Many people define a snuff film to be,
>simply, a film that depicts an actual murder. Intent to distribute is
>irrelevant to that definition. For example, child pornography is still
>child pornography whether it is distributed or not, and regardless of
>whether the person videotaping it is committing the act for th camera
>or not. If we subjected Child pornography to the same restricted
>definition that the AFU uses for Snuff films, a videotape made of
>someone molesting a child would not be child pornography if the person
>was going to rape the kid regardless. Hence, my point was, simply,
>that the existence of snuff films depends soley upon your personal
>definition of snuff films. Since none of my dictionaries contain a
>definition for snuff film, and since opinion varies from person to
>person, I certainly think that the definition itself is open for
>debate and personal interpretation.
Yes, and if you defined "murder" to mean "killing someone on
film", most people who kill other people would get off scot free.
Your argument above about child pornography is similar. If noone
ever sees it, how is a videotape, regardless of content, child
pornography?
That's the whole point of having an unambiguous definition of a
snuff film -- if anyone who comes along is free to define "snuff
film" the way they want, argument about whether or not they exist
becomes at best much more complicated and at worst futile.
What do we gain from adopting your definition of a snuff film?
If you're not arguing the definition just for the fun of arguing,
what purpose does yours serve?
I say your definition greatly dilutes and diminishes the urban
legend content of the concept. Much of the horror of the snuff
film urban legend comes from the idea that there are Depraved
People Out There who are willing to pay money to see actual
murders on film or video, *and* that there are people willing
to murder others for no better reason than to gratify the
Depraved Ones' desire to see such films.
If you expand the definition of a "snuff film" to include
any sort of moving picture (or even still photo, apparently)
of events proximate to an actual murder (or even of an accidental
death, as the people who think _Faces of Death_ is a snuff film do),
much of the horror is lost, and the concept leaves the realm of
folklore.
>>>Fangz wrote:
>>>Small comfort for the videotaped victims of Charles Ng and others,
>>>but believe whatever makes you feel happiest.
>>I wrote:
>>Is your case really so weak that a peculiarly shameless appeal
>>to emotion is needed to bolster it? I find it hard to believe
>>that murder victims would be comforted by your beliefs either.
>Fangz wrote:
>Emotion and academics don't mix. You may have interpreted it as an
>appeal to emotion but I actually wrote it to point out that the entire
>discussion is simply a trivial discussion of semantics that I don't
>take too seriously. (ie. Choosing one definition over another isn't
>going to change the what is being defined. A rose by any other
>name....)
Ah, I see. So, you aren't arguing that snuff films that meet
the AFU definition exist, you're merely pointing out the tautology
that if you redefine the term to include things which are known to
exist, then snuff films do exist?
Thanks. I never could have figured that out by myself.
ljd
Daniel Edwards
>Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
<snippage>
>>We've even had instances where people have been murdered on film then
>>*someone else* got a hold of the tape and commercially distributed it
>>but this doesn't qualify because the tape wasn't made specifically for
>>commercial distribution.
>
>deal of attention, and been reported widely in the news media.
>How about a cite?
Just passing through the thread, but wouldn't the Zapruder film qualify
here?
--Daniel
Tim Campbell
edw...@utulsa.edu> writes
>
>Just passing through the thread, but wouldn't the Zapruder film qualify
>here?
>
>--Daniel
No, because it was not made specifically for commercial gain.
--
Tim Campbell
David H. Siegel
Additionally, there was no sexual content. Murder on film is not
necessarily snuff. Murder on film in the context of a pornographic film
is snuff.
--
David "But it doesn't exist, therefore it isn't" Siegel
TMOliver
>
> Tim Campbell wrote:
> >
> > Daniel Edwards writes
> > >
> > >Just passing through the thread, but wouldn't the Zapruder film qualify
> > >here?
> >
> >
>
> Additionally, there was no sexual content. Murder on film is not
> necessarily snuff. Murder on film in the context of a pornographic film
> is snuff.
The carefully prepared WWII-era films by German researchers, showing CC
prisoners (presumably Jews) being immersed in cold water until near
death (or dead) with attempted resuscitation between the nude bodies of
female prisoners, survived the war and was brought back to the US (which
seems to have made use of the data on the grounds that to ignore it
would likely be of harm to our own sailors and airmen).Not made for
commercial purpose, but presumably capable of providing sexual arousal
to the most blatant of anti-Semites or sadists entranced with the water
treatment or chilly sex, were these "snuff films".
--
TMOliver, el pelon sinverguenza
From a small observatory overlooking McLennan Crossing
- VESPER ADEST IUVENES CONSURGITE -
Catullus
RadioFlyr
Maybe it is the brown film on the teeth and gums as result of people
taking snuff.
Radio"some places you don't go barefoot either..."Flyr
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the "Little web server," || Also my other pages:
A Mac SE serving the web, at: || http://www.lpl.org/people/gianni
http://149.96.1.33 || http://149.96.1.135
Richard Brandt
>
> Tim Campbell wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Just passing through the thread, but wouldn't the Zapruder film qualify
> > >here?
> > >
> >
> > No, because it was not made specifically for commercial gain.
> >
>
> Additionally, there was no sexual content. Murder on film is not
> necessarily snuff. Murder on film in the context of a pornographic film
> is snuff.
And was Daniel implying that Zapruder arranged the Kennedy
assassination simply so he could sell the film rights? At last,
this entire conspiracy makes sense!
> David "But it doesn't exist, therefore it isn't" Siegel
> dh...@columbia.edu
> <Webpage Coming Soonish>
> "If I want a world of ambiguity I'll go rent RASHOMON."-Richard Brandt
Richard "Not in the habit of quoting .sigs" Brandt
--
== Richard Brandt is at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8720/ ==
"My extremely limited experience of usenet makes me think of it
as a drunken one-shot but not quite as coherent."--Milt Stevens
Richard Brandt
> >Fangz <fa...@fangz.com> wrote:
> >
> >deal of attention, and been reported widely in the news media.
> >How about a cite?
> >
>
> most shocking photo series ever captured on film." It has since been
> distributed all over the newsgroups. If you haven't seen them yet, I'd
> be happy to forward you a copy of those pictures.
>
> >>murdered on tape, tape distribution, and a market audience for the
> >>material, but it still doesn't qualify simply because it doesn't
> >>follow the specific chain or definition created by the UL debunkers.
> >
> >No, it doesn't qualify because NOBODY HAS EVER BEEN CONVICTED
> >OF MURDERING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE A MOVIE WITH
> >A REAL MURDER IN IT. In other words, no genuine "snuff film"
> >has ever been found by law enforcement authorities.
> >
> >>In my opinion, this is simply a matter of nit-picking. It's playing on
> >>semantics to disqualify everything short of opening up the Snuff
> >>Incorporated Video shop and trading shares on the open stock market.
> >
> >AFU does not have to prove to you that snuff films do not exist.
> >You're the one asserting they must -- all you have to do is
> >provide evidence that a snuff film has been found. We'll change
> >the FAQ, and everyone will be happy.
> >
> >Where's the evidence?
> >
> >>qualify as child pornography because you can't go into Blockbuster
> >>Video and buy a copy.
> >
> >exists. People have been accused, tried, and convicted of producing
> >and distributing child pornography. Law enforcement organizations
> >have quantities of child pornography in their possession. There is
> >no equivalent evidence for "snuff".
> >
>
> DEFINITION of a snuff film. Many people define a snuff film to be,
> simply, a film that depicts an actual murder. Intent to distribute is
> irrelevant to that definition. For example, child pornography is still
> child pornography whether it is distributed or not, and regardless of
> whether the person videotaping it is committing the act for th camera
> or not. If we subjected Child pornography to the same restricted
> definition that the AFU uses for Snuff films, a videotape made of
> someone molesting a child would not be child pornography if the person
> was going to rape the kid regardless.
Yes, but this is to assume that the existence of film showing
murders being committed is the most interesting part of the
canonical "Snuff Film Legend." Much more ominous is the notion of an
underground network devoted to churning out such films (which
requires a steady supply of presumably unwilling partcicipants)
then distributing them to a cult of enthusiastic devotees who get
their rocks off watching victims first ravished then murdered.
Richard "'Wake up, Maddie, this is the age of home video'" Brandt
Daniel Edwards
I wrote:
> > >Just passing through the thread, but wouldn't the Zapruder film
qualify
>> > >here?
I've lost all track of the attributions from there.
>> > No, because it was not made specifically for commercial gain.
>> Additionally, there was no sexual content. Murder on film is not
>> necessarily snuff. Murder on film in the context of a pornographic film
>> is snuff.
>And was Daniel implying that Zapruder arranged the Kennedy
>assassination simply so he could sell the film rights? At last,
>this entire conspiracy makes sense!
Whoa, hold on here. Here's the original context I was replying to:
(I'd quote, but for some reason News Xpress won't let me copy it from the
DejaNews search in Internet Explorer)
Fangz wrote that "We've even had instances where someone has been murdered
on film then *someone else* got a hold of the tape and commercially
distributed it..."
Lawrence Doering, in <7bhsge$8...@mail.bcpl.net> disputed this claim, noting
that such a thing would have attracted all kinds of attention and been
reported in the media.
I asked if the Zapruder film qualified, not as a snuff film, but as a film
where someone has been murdered, then someone else got the tape and
distributed it. Clearly, there's been plenty of media attention given to
it.
The Zapruder film is not a snuff film. I know that. It's something else
entirely.
Daniel "But I heard 'Pictures of Lily' is a song about..." Edwards
--
Daniel Edwards | "We thought it needed a bigger base,
President, John Mabee Hall | so we mounted it on a toilet."
Dormitory for Men | --Scott Wheet
Toilet Bowl XXXIII MVP |
Brian Scearce
> Much of the horror of the snuff film urban legend comes from the
> idea that there are Depraved People Out There who are willing to
> pay money to see actual murders on film or video,
I'll go a little further and claim that an additional bit of horror
comes from the thought that one hopes and expects that the creators
of snuff films can and will eventually be caught and punished, the
"enablers" of the industry -- the buyers -- are too amorphous and
disconnected a group to be caught. And the buyers' continued
existence provides financial pressure for new snuff creators to
come into being. The system is self-perpetuating.
The story has legs because if one imagines that the audience for
snuff is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, that it is, in fact,
an *industry*, then there's probably someone among your friends,
neighbors and family who has a snuff tape. Ng and his accomplices
swapping their tapes around is chilling, but it's a different *type*
of chilling. Especially after Ng has been caught.
Since a lot of the point of urban legends is in their morals or
lessons, the AFU definition is an attempt to capture this particular
type of semi-intimate inextinguishable horror.
--
Brian Scearce b...@best.com
Read, think, (possibly) post -- do not alter this order.
Mike Holmans
>l...@mail.bcpl.net (Laurence Doering) writes:
>> Much of the horror of the snuff film urban legend comes from the
>> idea that there are Depraved People Out There who are willing to
>> pay money to see actual murders on film or video,
>
>"enablers" of the industry -- the buyers -- are too amorphous and
>disconnected a group to be caught. And the buyers' continued
>existence provides financial pressure for new snuff creators to
>come into being. The system is self-perpetuating.
>
>The story has legs because if one imagines that the audience for
>snuff is in the tens or hundreds of thousands, that it is, in fact,
>an *industry*, then there's probably someone among your friends,
>neighbors and family who has a snuff tape.
That's an interesting view.
A couple of years ago, there was an investigation centred on Amsterdam
and the activities of a Brit by the name of Warwick Spinks, which got
very close to finding actual snuff. The police and investigative
journalists co-operated on the story. There was certainly considerable
circumstantial evidence which would lead even the fairly sceptical to
recognise that the making of snuff films was a very reasonable
explanation of events.
One of the print reports of the investigation suggested that there was a
market, but that it was very small and exclusive. No more than 20 copies
of a film would be made, and they were sold, mostly to Americans, at
about $10,000 a shot.
That actually fits very well with what I've always imagined the scenario
to be. The snufficionado of my legend is a very rich man whose vast
mansion is kitted out for every conceivable depravity, and yet he is
still bored and craves yet more extreme titillation.
Perhaps this is British class-consciousness - the very wealthy are
different from the likes of us - but I'd prefer to think it was based on
the view that the fabulously wealthy must be rotten to the core, a theme
which occurs in the Old Testament and so is hardly original.
Snuff movies are quite grisly to contemplate. I don't really think you
need to take any one specific interpretation and assert that it is the
reason why the tale propagates readily: the core of the story is
repellent enough (at least to most people) to ensure it. But the more
you think about it, the more horrible implications you find, and all of
them add fuel, I think.
Mike "not dying to find out the truth" Holmans
--
I simply can't find it anywhere in me to imagine that someone might want to
stick sharp pasta spikes down into his penis. - D.M.Procida
www.urbanlegends.com can help you enjoy AFU even more