here is where you claim they dont exist:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_258.html
but here I found something which can only be labled, ‘Snuff’:
Welcome to the SDMB, SJT. I removed the link from your post. I’m not sure we really need to leave that for everyone to see. This isn’t my forum, so I will consult with my colleague Mr. Winkelried for a final ruling.
Ya know, SJT even though Cecil has yet to write a column about Infants who can boogie their diapers off!, I have actually seen babies dancing on the internet(as well as hamsters). The internet’s an amazing toy. 
okay, I admit, there needed to be a warning… hey Twain; if it was a fake why was it removed? it looked very real to me otherwise I wouldnt have posted it…
if anybody still wants to find it you just search altavista for that word under the video search, that word being “snuff”; but dont go there unless you have no clue what a snuff flim is obviously, no for people not wanted to see that. but if you want to make a judgement for yourself and have the fortitude to do so, its your own choice
-
I’m a strong free speech advocate - quit posting to the Infidels (free thinker) site over the issue. But, it IS their board and their server. Your right to say something is not the same as the right to grab someone eles’s megaphone.
-
Besides, as you say, the information is still available to anyone who wants to find it. Don’t cry wolf.
-
No one denies that there are snuff pictures. Certainly Cecil didn’t. The question is whether there’s a cottage industry in snatching people, then killing them on camera with a view to distributing the film.
It was removed not because it was real or fake, but because it violated your user agreement and/or the board rules. No direct links to such things.
That few seconds clip was almost certainly staged and the girl was not killed. I can’t prove it’s fake anymore than you can prove it was real. I’m sure a video lab could pick it apart and show you why it was fake.
it tells you to put a link as to know what cecil comment I was referring to, I was unaware of violating any user agreement in giving another for my argument with it being media rather than an off site opinion. it just seemed logical to argue facts with the very refutation of the statement made.
I would like to see a lab pick it apart. that sure must have been better acting than in most celebrities of hollywood then, so bravo if so, but I just didnt get that feeling…
the fact that it looked staged was the very reason it seemed professionally done; Id est; a Snuff film rather than some faces of death type video.
in india and such places, actors and other locally famous individuals are captured and killed in an attempt to get money from relatives. then single copies of such videos sell between themselves on the blackmarket for $100,000’s
the fact is, I’ve seen this mpeg around, on KaZaA in can be found named "extrem ilegal’ and ‘shot to head’. but Ive never seen any website mentioning it as a fake or picking it apart. if that could be done I would be interested. I’ve been around firearms for much of my life, thats about what it would look like to shoot any animal while hunting at close range if their was a wall directly behind it… if it was real it was all done for effect, they even probably had that night gown for her to wear; thus a snuff film and not a spur of the moment kill video or whatever it would be called to otherwise murder someone on camera
Just took a quick spin around the web to find articles on this subject. One of which, of course, was Cecil’s. Three other good ones, all of which reach the same conclusion as Cecil, include Skeptical Inquirer (Scott Aaron Stine ), the Urban Legends Reference Pages (Barbara Mikkelson) and Planet Papers (Ken Harding). Didn’t find anyone reaching an opposite conclusion, but can’t claim to have made an exhaustive search.
what I heard about such things occuring in India and “baliwood” was from a source much more trusting than cecil; it was a prime time news show, either 20/20 or Dateline, or another such.
as if there has been some long time organization in america which does such things, I am not claiming. but that professional murders have been done for the sole purpose of taping them for a real life horror effect among the deranged, I am quite convinced has happened (and not serial killers just taping victims, but individual victims sought out for the purpose of a taping)
Found it. Or what I believe almost has to be it. About 500KB, right? (Actually, I found it in two places, one a little smaller and the other a little larger, depending on just how much of the clip they used.) On the first site, it was described outright as a fake. (And this was a very conservative, dissin’ Gore and Hillary kinda place; no bleeding hearts, you can be sure.) The second has a detailed and thoroughly convincing demonstration of the fakery, using blow-ups of several frames to make the point.
Unless the Powers That Be say it’s okay, I’m not going to post the link (it’s every bit as graphic as the clip). But, if you search in the obvious places, it’s not that hard to find. (Would recommend Google, rather than Altavista, btw, but to each his/her own.)
So, help me out here, mods. Should I give the link? Author-and-title so that it’s easier to find in a search? Or just let it stand as it is? Let me know and that’s what I’ll do.
We have the “two-clicks away from the MB” rule here–anything of a potentially offensive nature has to be two mouse-clicks away from the SDMB, hence Bib’s deletion of the OP’s link. A big reason behind this is because many people here post from their workplaces, and we have had situations where someone at work innocently opened a link in a thread and had XXX porn pop up on his desktop.
With the boss looking over his shoulder… :eek:
So, what you can do is, you can give us the exact words to search Google under. We frequently use this roundabout way to tell folks how to find a porn link that’s under discussion, such as “Do a Google search for ‘lolo ferrari’,” which is perfectly acceptable. Then you do the Search, up come the links about Lolo Ferrari, and then it’s up to you which ones you click on.
SJT, here’s the registration agreement. And here’s the part that your direct link to a purported “snuff” film violated:
If you knew it was a fake snuff film, then at the very least it was “vulgar”, not to mention “hateful”.
But if you thought it was real, and apparently you did, then it was “violative of…law”, and “fosters and promotes illegal activity”.
BTW, welcome to the SDMB! You had the right idea (“but, Cecil, what about this?”), you just implemented it wrong. Chalk it up to a “learning experience” and move on, is my advice. 
Okay, now that DDG has explained the protocol (as you can see, I haven’t been around here that long myself), here’s how to find it. Go to Google and enter snuff mpeg. Amongst the first twenty results will be at least four sites where or through which the clip can be found (all of which describe it as fake). The one to which I referred in my earlier post is called “Analysis of a “Snuff Video” – Is it Real?”, by Alexander Jason. And there’s an article by Mat Honan from which, if you follow through the links (and links within links) you can find both the site whence the clip originated (which also describes it as fake) and (in another spot) a letter from the creator describing how they put it together.
Well, I decided to go look at one snuff film, but since most of the Google hits were to sites that said things like, “Teen Free Sites Xxx Fucking Jenna Asssfuck Vaginalring Amsterdamporno”, :rolleyes: and even though the kids are at school… I had to go to Page 2 to find one that didn’t. This one’s fairly innocuous.
http://www.makesmeangry.com/mpegs.html which is just a web page of mpegs, and scroll down and click on “snuff film”. (See, that’s the “two clicks” thing.)
Blonde with long hair, gun to head, begging “stop…” It’s just a 6-second clip.
I’m working from the assumption that it’s a fake. You ask, “How could it possibly be faked?”
Well, for starters, I believe that when you shoot a human head, it splatters a LOT more. There should be a pattern of splash marks and blood sprinkles all over the entire wall behind her, but there isn’t–it’s obviously a paintball gun being fired past her head and detonating on the wall behind her, while she jerks her head backwards. There’s just the one big paintball “blop”, is what I’m saying, no “splatters”.
The gun itself has a cocked hammer that I seem to see going down as the shot is fired, and while offhand I don’t see any paintball guns on the Web that have hammers that can be cocked, still I see that there are apparently people on the Web that do “conversions” of real guns into paintball guns, and there are also a number of “replica” paintball guns out there. However, there’s a limit to the amount of time I want to spend on this, so I don’t have any links.
So, bottom line, I believe that this “snuff film” at least is a guy firing a paintball gun.
And, the “fat women [sic] wrecks minibike” MPEG is not that funny, IMO (I hope she didn’t hurt herself), but the “why cows hate winter” is LOL funny. But don’t open it at work, as it’s a tad racy.
DDG PBear’s nifty info in the post before yours allows one to skip the porn sites and go directly to the debunking of the clip.
Great job, PBear
Thanks, samclem, but DDG is right. I did sort of goof. Made the mistake of going by memory, and for some reason miscounted the first time 'round. Just reran the search. The “hits” are sort of in the same place and order as I recall, but don’t start (as DDG says) until the second page. Must have skipped over the first results page without it registering. Anyhoo, the JAlexander ason article is (or was just a moment ago), result #21 (i.e., top of the third results page) and is, as I said earlier, conclusive for all reasonable purposes.
Typin’ too fast. That’s the Alexander Jason article.
From your info, I simply typed in “Alexander Jason” snuff film and got a direct link to his part 3 explanation which was sufficient.
Yup, dat’l work. Works for the other article too, but don’t blame me for where it leads you. That one is a porn site. Not the article. Where the trail leads from there.
Even the girl getting “shot” in the video says it, and quite forcefully: “Snuff films do NOT exist.”
As if this were something a person would say moments before knowingly being executed on camera. Just the opposite, rather. It’s surprising no one has harped on that point yet, this many posts into the thread.
For myself, the simple explanation is that I couldn’t understand what she was saying. But I’ve long had this problem, which has to do with signal/noice processing rather than accuity. I’m the sort of person for whom they include lyrics on albums.
That said, this may be a good catch even for people with normal hearing. At least no one has mentioned it in three different sites I’ve seen discussing/debunking the clip.