• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Snuff Films?

A

Anonymous

Guest
Despite UL's floating around for decades, is it not true that there has not been a single case involving a snuff film, or any films seized by custom officers or police forces.
I'm not saying there isn't very nasty stuff out there but is the whole concept of snuff films just a UL.
 
Yeah, not a single one has been found. Like with organ thieves.
 
friend of a friend

Ok so this is prefaced with a FOAF warning but:

A friend of mine said that one of his friends had some snuff movies and he told him to dump them or he would no longer be his friend.

I wlways thought that the point was that there where no actual deaths in snuff movies not that there where no mock-ups of the same?

I stand to be corected.
 
There aren't any of the "traditional" snuff movies where somebody is being killed for the sake of the camera. But you can on the inernet find movies taken by security cams and such with nasty things on it. People falling down in front of a train and such.
 
Xanatic said:
There aren't any of the "traditional" snuff movies where somebody is being killed for the sake of the camera. But you can on the inernet find movies taken by security cams and such with nasty things on it. People falling down in front of a train and such.
Click to expand...
There was that infamous 80's video nasty, 'Faces of Death' which was basically a compile tape of people dying on camera in news feeds, etc. So you had some poor sod getting eaten by lions during a wildlife doc, or that New York politican who killed himself during a live press conference.
Pretty purile stuff for the sort of people who burn insects with a magnifying glass
 
Though, it should be stated that virtually all the the FACES OF DEATH movies consist mostly of horribly staged hoax material, with the odd real-life news feed thrown in.
 
I have met two people who claimed to have seen snuff movies, they both seemed quite trustworthy.

One was at a talk about Women in the Media, another was an ex-colleague of mine. These films sounded absolutely repellent, especially as some of those watching seemed to really get off on what they were seeing. I suppose they could have been particularly life like video nasties.

Far from being a UL, I find it difficult to believe that there aren't any in existence. There is some sick stuff out there, sadistic porn and paedophilia, etc. it wouldn't be that surprising if someone filmed for example, their own serial-killing antics.
 
Ever since i was younger and my friend told me that Snuff movies existed they've always made me feel physically repulsed. Just reading this thread literally makes me wanna puke:(
But i do agree that there has to be some truth in them. I mean we are in the 21st century now, just look at some of the sick things you can find on the net alone. I am of course talking about Rotten.com! looked once - NEVER AGAIN :cross eye
 
I agree with you, Auntie Peach .The Jason Swift murder ( i hope thats the right name ) by a peadophile ring was videoed, theres bound to be copies of that around .Its so easy to get the equipment its naive to think it isn't happening. In Bizzare a couple of months ago there was an animal cruelty article which had stills from videos of animals being killed and tortured , I've also heard that the more organised football hooligans video their antics for future reference, its only a short step from that.
 
It is very easy and convenient to use the measure of what is possible or even probable as a substitute for evidence and the body of evidence leading to proof.

The current confusion over the MMR vaccine safety is a case of people using apparently connected events as a substitute for evidence. Whatever may be hidden or not yet discovered, cannot be accounted for but the body of evidence does not support the contention that the vaccine is connected to the tragic condition of the sick people we have seen in the media.

Some years ago the same flawed media driven pseudo logic led people to conclude that clusters of childhood leukaemias in Cumbria MUST be connected to the nuclear industry. A full scientific report found that a high level of deleterious recessive gene combinations in the local inbreeding population was actually the cause.

It is a similar disregard for evidence that led to the Orkney and Rochdale Ritual child abuse fiascos.

Fort reminded scientists that they must use the strict rules of evidence and not argue a point because of a prior belief. Look at the evidence.

Sorry for being a bit heavy on what was a not too serious thread but I feel v strongly that we must not let uninformed hysteria run our lives.
 
The closest things to snuff films that exist today are videos from Chechya and Bosnia, where prisoners are killed on camera. I wouldn't call them snuff films per se, because they're not pornographic or sexual like snuff films are supposed to be, and they're more an account of a war than a moneymaking venture.

Is that one where a guy stabs a guy in the throat real?
 
I don't think anyone has ever been killed just for the supposed entertainment purposes of a good film, but i watched a tv documentry along with p.younger and cujo, and it was footage of a group of lads in merica who hired a stripper to there party, they drugged her and went on to rape her, they openly said to the camera things such as " you are witnessing the raping of a crack whore " and if this stuff is true then i can only imagine what goes on that we don't hear about. you only have to look at the top shelf of any half decent amsterdam porno shop ( i haven't BTW ) to see titles such as ladyboy whore gets *^% $%^$^ in the "£$ &% by a camel, so if people are making this stuff people must be buying it, so it could exhist.

( anyone seen a film called 8mm with nicolas cage, about snuff movies )
 
Auntie Peach said:
I have met two people who claimed to have seen snuff movies, they both seemed quite trustworthy.

One was at a talk about Women in the Media, another was an ex-colleague of mine. These films sounded absolutely repellent, especially as some of those watching seemed to really get off on what they were seeing. I suppose they could have been particularly life like video nasties.

Far from being a UL, I find it difficult to believe that there aren't any in existence. There is some sick stuff out there, sadistic porn and paedophilia, etc. it wouldn't be that surprising if someone filmed for example, their own serial-killing antics.
Click to expand...
Its attitudes like this that help keep the UL alive. You are using the testimony of friends of friends, filling in the blanks and assuming that it was true.
If these people saw these films why didn't they report them to the police.
 
I didn't say it *was* true, I said I had difficulty believing that, in this sick world, murders *weren't* being filmed. Everything else seems to be nowadays.

There are some people out there who like porn featuring kids being raped and tortured (Gary Glitter for one). Its not that much of a step up to filming one being murdered. The Moors murderers audio-taped their victims didn't they - would they have used a camcorder if they'd had one?

I hope it is a UL, its not a subject I like to think about. Even if the snuff films were actually hoaxes, I find it disturbing that people want to watch things like that.

And yes, those people should have reported it to the police. I'd be off to the cop shop in a flash. But I'm betting a month's salary the plods would do absolutely f--- all about it if I did.
 
Somewhere in my attic I have a feminist magazine from the 70s which has an article about a snuff film that had reached Britain at that time. The writer viewed it at a private screening with police, who said that it was all totally for real - everybody was repulsed, horrified etc. etc.. Years later, it turned out that the film was "Snuff", a cheap commercial soft-porn movie made using fake gore and zero-budget special effects. I think you can get it legally on video nowadays - maybe that was the film that the Women in Media person had seen.
Which brings me to the thought: if a similiar commercial film was made nowadays, using the best SFX that money could buy - how could you tell it wasn't the real thing?
 
Well, for one thing if you saw a real death you'r probably find it to be unrealistic. After having seen too many hollywod movies. The blood is darker, people don't fall back after being shot and they don't lay in neat positions. Also if you standing on a roof and getting shot, you don't throw yourself into some acrobatic manouver and fall down from it. :D A real death would probably be recognised in that it would be too "boring" if I can use that word.
 
Xanatic said:
. After having seen too many hollywod movies. The blood is darker, people don't fall back after being shot and they don't lay in neat positions. Also if you standing on a roof and getting shot, you don't throw yourself into some acrobatic manouver and fall down from it.
Click to expand...
I agree with that, but that's just sloppy, lazy production. I once read a British surgeon who had worked on accident and gunshot victims on his opinion of Hollywood's depiction of violent deaths. He reckoned that "Resovoir Dogs" was the only film he knew that showed 'real' gunshot deaths, especially the way it showed Tin Roth spending an hour painfully bleeding to death.
But that just goes to show that Hollywood can depict realistic deaths when it wants to. So how would we know if a modern 'snuff' film was real or fake?
 
Don't get me wrong: There exist PLENTY of murders on camera, for the sake of the camera. They just aren't snuff films.

Serial killers Lake and Ng videotaped themselves raping and killing. But, since these tapes were not meant for sale or public consumption, they are not snuff films.
 
I stand corrected then, H.

I thought this was what snuff films were, I didn't realise there had to be a commercial aspect.
 
how to make an UL


There are some people out there who like porn featuring kids being raped and tortured (Gary Glitter for one). Its not that much of a step up to filming one being murdered. The Moors murderers audio-taped their victims didn't they - would they have used a camcorder if they'd had one?


And yes, those people should have reported it to the police. I'd be off to the cop shop in a flash. But I'm betting a month's salary the plods would do absolutely f--- all about it if I did.
Click to expand...




Ok Garry Gliter was arested because of pornographic images of children on his computer. I can remember no mension of images of torture and 'pornographic images' may well have related to what would be called (if it used consenting adults rather than children) soft-core porn. With no evidence to back up this claim you are puting it on this sight and sowing seeds in the conciousness of the other users.

The Moors murderers are not uncommon in their recording of the torture of victims (there are posts on this thread dealing with this subject) and they could have, with the technoligy avalable at that time, filmed them but they did not.

The police spend hugh amounts on pedifelia and child porn. The idea that they do nothing is an insult to them, the victims and the juditial system that put's people behind barrs.

Lastly an active and inactive pedophile are seperate and eunique beings and there is no garante that a man (or woman) who gets exited by looking at erotisised images of children will neseseraly carry out any atacks on children.

Just a little clarification on some points there.
 
'Snuff' - UL or Prophecy?

Up until recently, I would have written the whole 'Snuff' controversy off as last years news - exposed as a hoax as it was, and there being technical and financial reasons why life was unlikely to imitate art in this case. In fact, I'd have said the only point of interest in the 'Snuff' UL was that it gave rise to Cronenberg's master work 'Videodrome'.

However, I recently subscribed to a service called 'Morpheus', which, for those of you who don't know it, is a kind of super-son-of-Napster. It doesn't just swap MP3's but all sorts of files. One option is to look at a list of files another user has made available. When I did this with people who'd got music I was interested in, to see if they'd got stuff that looked interesting, I was staggered not just by the volume of porn, but by the deeply disturbed and violent nature of it. OK, I didn't look at the images, but the titles were pretty upfront, involving various kinds of sexual assault.

I know that some of you will think I'm naive, I knew that the Net was full of porn, but I hadn't really grasped how full, or that we weren't dealing with consenting adults erotica. I don't come into contact with porn anywhere else in my life, so perhaps I'm overeacting, but I don't think so. My point is that if that's what's close to the surface, what the hell is in the dark depths? I could easily believe that real 'snuff' films are out there.

As for whether something has to be commercial to qualify, isn't it more that it has to be made available to an audience, and that there has to be an audience which demands it. I understand why serial killers home movies don't count, but I think today's tech makes porn so easy to create that its no longer just made by those with money, or simply to make money.
 
Re: how to make an UL

jamesveldon said:
Ok Garry Gliter was arested because of pornographic images of children on his computer. I can remember no mension of images of torture and 'pornographic images' may well have related to what would be called (if it used consenting adults rather than children) soft-core porn. With no evidence to back up this claim you are puting it on this sight and sowing seeds in the conciousness of the other users.
Click to expand...

That's what the Guardian newspaper reported when he was sentenced, I'm delighted to say I have no experience of child porn myself, so can't verify it. The Wonderland club internet stuff (from about a year ago) did, apparently contain stuff like this, I remember the investigating officers saying they were deeply distressed when they were interviewed afterwards.

At no point in my post did I say the police don't take paedophiles seriously - don't know where you got that idea.

Isn't it strange that women who like sex with consenting adult men are still called slags but you can go on a message board like this and read defence of child porn users (as long as they don't attack anybody they're ok!)
 
Auntie Peach said:
And yes, those people should have reported it to the police. I'd be off to the cop shop in a flash. But I'm betting a month's salary the plods would do absolutely f--- all about it if I did.
Click to expand...
Looks like that's where we got the idea Auntie Peach ;)
Nobody, as far I can see in this thread, is defending child porn and I certainly wouldn't want to hang out on a board where that was the consensus view.
I just think some posters were saying that as disgusting and distressing as child porn is, it is not actually a snuff film, in the narrow sense that people weren't killed on camera for the benefit of paying customers.
 
Oh for heaven's sake! (v. exasperated Peach) go back and read my original post. Either I can't write or some people can't read.

I was referring to reporting the existence of a snuff video to the police, at no point did I say it was child porn that the two people I mentioned had seen. Perhaps I didn't explain very well. Maybe I should have written Point 1) and Point 2) in my post to clarify.

And anyway, I was just relating a story of someone telling me they had seen a snuff film (Point 1!) as a point of interest and (Point 2!) as my own suspicions that films of murders might well exist. (later verified by Hachihyaku) I never said I had scientific proof. I thought discussion boards were for discussion?

For example, I "think" putting taxes up and spending money on NHS and public transport would improve life in this country. I have no scientic proof for that either, but its an opinion I'd take into the polling booth with me.

Stop flaming me for having an opinion, not to mention a very real worry about what some types of porn (as in Wintermute's post).
 
and furthermore

Auntie Peach said:
Stop flaming me for having an opinion, not to mention a very real worry about what some types of porn (as in Wintermute's post).
Click to expand...

I have no wish to defend pedophelia and I do not think that pedophliacs are 'OK.' I mearly wisghed to point out that they are not an amorphose lump of evil but a colection of difrent types all suffering from a mental ilness (or if you disagree with that then at least a disfunction.)

To reiterate my point about basing opinions on fact and the way that Uls grow: Wintermute did not look at these films and therefore did not even know if they where footage of actual rapes or mocked footage therefore his point about the films he is judging by title is not made nevermind the logical jump (from A to Z) about the existance of snuff movies.

A point I have made meny times on various threads on this message board is that you need to review your evidence before presenting a theory. This is sadly lacking on this thread where people are exepting that snuff films exist without any evidance. I expect more from seasoned Fortaens. there is no evidence of the existance of films in wich an individual is actualy killed for it's suposid erotic charge therefore there are no such films in existance. To argue otherwise is to fly in the face of logic.

And, in parting, I would like to say that I do not think this discusion is aided by insulting and mudslinging. I have at no time said that child porn or the consumers of said material are 'Ok' and any atempt to lable me as such will only backfire on those engaging in cheap tricks rather than debate.
 
Re: and furthermore

jamesveldon said:
there is no evidence of the existance of films in wich an individual is actualy killed for it's suposid erotic charge therefore there are no such films in existance
Click to expand...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 
Oh I am so bored of this now. I've said this twice, this is the last time, I cannot be arsed with it any longer:-

1) I related an anecdote, that was all. If I said "My friend claimed to have seen a UFO" I wouldn't be saying that proved the existence of little green men. I was kind of making conversation, to add to the discussion.

2) I said that I thought snuff films may well exist, given the sick stuff which *does* exist. No hard evidence, no scientific proof, just my own view. Feelings, opinions, views, emotions, experience, etc these all have their place, surely? This board would be mighty skinny if all we did was trade cast iron scientific facts wouldn't it? I was discussing, not offering proof. You know, an iterative process, that what's good about message boards, all can get their two pennorth in.

3) James - I'm truly sorry if I appeared to be mudslinging but I had been accused of being hysterical and illogical, reason enough for me to get annoyed. The planet you live on might be a pink fluffy one but mine's scarier. I am genuinely scared by nasty woman-hating porn on the internet (and I'm not even looking for it, its comes to me unbidded!) and I'm also worried for my nieces and nephews and friends' kids. There are some nasty pieces of work who like to hurt people and I'm delighted if they're *not* filming their victim's last moments. I'm in agreement with Derek H,just because you don't have evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The part of your post which you put in bold type is actually illogical itself, perhaps it was intended to be humourous?

4) I'm not sure if I'd call myself a Fortean, seasoned or otherwise! I'd prefer something like open-minded skeptic.

If I'd said "Snuff movies definitely exist cos I think they probably do" people would have a right to label me unscientifc and illogical. But I never said that, I just expressed my gut feelings on the matter.

And my views are as valid as those of any of the other posters here.
 
Wintermute did not look at these films and therefore did not even know if they where footage of actual rapes or mocked footage therefore his point about the films he is judging by title is not made nevermind the logical jump (from A to Z) about the existance of snuff movies.
Click to expand...

Pardon me, but what I said was that I'd moved from total disbelief to entertaining the possibility.

It doesn't matter to me whether the files under the titles were real rape scenes, fake rape scenes, or bits out of The Magic Roundabout, the point is that a frightening number of people out there think its nothing to be ashamed of to have files on public view that purport to be footage of rapes. I share Auntie Peach's view of the sickening amount of misogynist material on the net, it makes the world a much scarier place, and makes a Dworkinist/Solanasista point of view understandable.

For 'snuff' material to exist, there have to be consumers, and there's evidence that they exist; and producers, who these days would only need a couple of hundred quids worth of gear to get the stuff global. In a world where the people who listen to the kind of alt./leftfield stuff I do have sexual assault filed under erotica, it doesn't seem unreasonable to believe that one day the logic of the market will lead to snuff moving from UL to reality.

Veey long post, but just a PS
And my views are as valid as those of any of the other posters here.
Click to expand...

Quite right Auntie P - don't let the bastards grind you down!
 
The view of the consumer, er maybe:


"Oi, Miss! I wish to make a complaint.

This video that you sold me half an hour ago. I have reason to
believe that the lady in it is not dead, deceased, snuffed . . . etc etc"


:p
 
apologies and clarifications

I must apolagise for my rather extrem post earlier today. I do not intend to cause ofence but I will admit that my style of arguing is rather erm...over the top.

Just to clarify: I do not think that rape or mutilation is aceptable as erotic entertanment and i do not think that the mysoginistic profile of porn is aceptable either. However I still stick to my guns when it comes to issues of proof. You can not go from A to C without entertaning B and then claim that the resulting theory is anything but theory. If you look at my first posting on this thread I argued that I have knowlage of the existance of 'snuff' movies even if the source of this is not reliable. I think that snuff movies exist but that they do not show actual killings. However what i beleve I do not argue is neseseraly true but mearly a theory and as such is open to discusion.

I also do not justifie violence to women or children. I am (ocasionaly) involved in S+M activities and within that there is only consentual activities. I view porn as abusive even if the individuals involved in it are concenting as the consumption of the material does not have the express concent of the individuals involved at each viewing. There is a clear defination of abuse and that is nonconsentual sexual acts therefore rape and child abuse fall within this catigory. However if we debate these issues without first atempting to distance ourselfs from emotional responces than we can not understand or in any way provide a real chalange to them.

Oh yes and in parting: as someone asked earlier yes I have saw 8mm and it's a good movie.

Again I apolagise if I caused offence but I do get pashonate when it comes to issues of proof and perhaps did not express my views on this mater fully in my earlier post. My view is simply this that if you can not prove a thing exists then it can not be said to exist. Tied to this is the idea that the simplest explanation usualy turns out to be the right one and aplying this to the topic of this thread snuff as an Urban Myth is the most logical explanation therefore in the absence of concret proof to opose this view then I would argue that it should stand.

Perhaps a discusion of what Snuff as an Urban Myth sais about the sociaty that produces the myth is an interesting topic of conversation. Well does anyone have any theories?

p.s. You are alowed to articulate ideas and beliefs but not surly as facts as this clouds the issues in series debate. But then how series is this sight? Semiserious, quasiseries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top