From: twcaps@tennyson.lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Snuff film?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 18:30:03 GMT
Organization: Department of Redundancy Department
Reply-To: TWChan@lbl.gov (Terry Chan)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.12.117

ashall@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Andrew S Hall) writes:

 +It seems like people who deny the existence of snuff films have forgotten 
 +about Faces of Death.While no one (that I know of) was killed for the purpose 
 +of the videos, it certainly shows people dying.

It seems like people who say that people who deny the existence of
snuff films have forgetten about FACES OF DEATH because it certainly
shows people dying have been absent and/or ignorant of the many
discussions on a.f.u. and what constitutes a snuff film.

 +Also, I think the arguement should be more centered around the contention
 +of gangs of people who kidnap women and kill them for movies. This certainly 
 +qualifies as a UL. However, I find it most UNLIKELY that some sicko or sickos 
 +HAVEN'T recorded their atrocities, especially with the easy access to vidoe 
 +equipment these days.To put in perspective, I know of a few film students who 
 +have killed animals for the purpose of their movies.

You are mixing two points.  There have certainly been "sicko or sickos"
who have recorded their atrocities (if by atrocity you refer to people
who capture their killing of people on film).  However, the lack of 
evidence of "gangs" or other organized individuals who are kidnapping
and killing people (usually rumored to be women) for the goal of
making films for sale to those with a prurient interest is the primary
point of contention.

I agree that technology is such that it is probably easier for people 
to make such films than before.

I also agree that this people are certainly capable of doing so.  If
evidence of such films arose, I think most people who currently say
"snuff films don't exist, because there's not evidence", will say,
"well, there's the evidence, snuff films exist" (along with other 
sentiments such as "hang those motherf*ckers").  But the question is
not "Can you BELIEVE people couldn't/can't/didn't do such a thing?".
After all, people who maintain this position thus far are not doing
it out of naivete.  In fact, many are among the most cynical, hard-
boiled sons-of-bitches around (sorry, Bill).  But it is done so on
the basis of lack of evidence.  This does not mean that they may
not have their own suspicions, but they don't commit the error of
mistaking their own conceptions and beliefs for reality in the lack
of any evidence that it's correct.

The point that "There are people who killed things and then filmed 
them" is really not relevant either. [In fact, for a better perspective, 
rather than those film students you know, I would have thought a more 
relevant comparison would be to how Hollywood used to routinely kill/
mortally injure animals for films (e.g., westerns, Disney and Lemmings, 
etc.)]

Whether or not a snuff film is found though, this is still an urban
legend since urban legends don't exist solely because they are false.
But the snuff debate has gotten to the point where with all the rancor
about "snuff films being made all over the place" with no evidence
at all, some people remain adamant about asking for evidence.

Terry "Faces of Snuff" Chan
--
Energy and Environment Division   | Internet:  TWChan@lbl.gov
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory      | 
Berkeley, California  USA  94720  | Carpe Per Diem
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban