HorrorMovieFans.com

Another reason to watch Hired Gun is Nita Strauss

I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

All conspiracy theories are persuasive when they are videos. People talking in a matter of fact you’ve, information being told but not sourced. Or sourced by some words that don’t link it through. It is easy to persuade people of dubious claims with enough bluster for me. Increasingly I see a video about the moon landing being a hoax, JFK being a big government cover up, 9/11 being a Bush missile drill etc and the video shows all these snippets and asks all these questions as if it’s a valid query. They control the narrative. And for that rude I don’t find myself clicking away to verify each claim I can’t square away or assessing evidence. I’m just going along for the ride.

And increasingly I find they all tend to be easily debunked now with more readily available sources. So it loses credibility for me. The best “conspiracy” for me tend to be hypotheses in writing with sources. And not the usual documentary style ones.

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

All conspiracy theories are persuasive when they are videos. People talking in a matter of fact you’ve, information being told but not sourced. Or sourced by some words that don’t link it through. It is easy to persuade people of dubious claims with enough bluster for me. Increasingly I see a video about the moon landing being a hoax, JFK being a big government cover up, 9/11 being a Bush missile drill etc and the video shows all these snippets and asks all these questions as if it’s a valid query. They control the narrative. And for that rude I don’t find myself clicking away to verify each claim I can’t square away or assessing evidence. I’m just going along for the ride.

And increasingly I find they all tend to be easily debunked now with more readily available sources. So it loses credibility for me. The best “conspiracy” for me tend to be hypotheses in writing with sources. And not the usual documentary style ones.

But you believe CNN. Lol

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

All conspiracy theories are persuasive when they are videos. People talking in a matter of fact you’ve, information being told but not sourced. Or sourced by some words that don’t link it through. It is easy to persuade people of dubious claims with enough bluster for me. Increasingly I see a video about the moon landing being a hoax, JFK being a big government cover up, 9/11 being a Bush missile drill etc and the video shows all these snippets and asks all these questions as if it’s a valid query. They control the narrative. And for that rude I don’t find myself clicking away to verify each claim I can’t square away or assessing evidence. I’m just going along for the ride.

And increasingly I find they all tend to be easily debunked now with more readily available sources. So it loses credibility for me. The best “conspiracy” for me tend to be hypotheses in writing with sources. And not the usual documentary style ones.

what makes a conspiracy hypothesis in writing more credible than one in video form? both would seem to have the same possibility of being proven untrue with official trusted sources, if you wanna go that way.

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:

zombie wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

zombie wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:D you watch that Hired Gun thing yet I want you to think the dude from Filter is as big a dick as I do lol

is he just pretentious or full of himself, or what?

Just a greedy dick and everything you said as well you should check it out too

i'll try to see if i can find it.

It's on Netflix

i am between netflix.

What does that mean? :p

it means whatever you want it to mean?

Never heard the Bush missile drill one, that sounds hilarious.

or maybe I have and it was so weak I paid it no mind to remember it

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

All conspiracy theories are persuasive when they are videos. People talking in a matter of fact you’ve, information being told but not sourced. Or sourced by some words that don’t link it through. It is easy to persuade people of dubious claims with enough bluster for me. Increasingly I see a video about the moon landing being a hoax, JFK being a big government cover up, 9/11 being a Bush missile drill etc and the video shows all these snippets and asks all these questions as if it’s a valid query. They control the narrative. And for that rude I don’t find myself clicking away to verify each claim I can’t square away or assessing evidence. I’m just going along for the ride.

And increasingly I find they all tend to be easily debunked now with more readily available sources. So it loses credibility for me. The best “conspiracy” for me tend to be hypotheses in writing with sources. And not the usual documentary style ones.

what makes a conspiracy hypothesis in writing more credible than one in video form? both would seem to have the same possibility of being proven untrue with official trusted sources, if you wanna go that way.

At least in writing I can fact check in real time cksimscand sources that they claim and link to.

Like the right and left wing fringe crap (your Breitbarts and LOLGOP
type blogs) you can read their obviously over the top hyperbole and then you can click the source data and read what it’s trying to twist. With videos you don’t often do that. It says a reputable physicist claims the tower cant fall at that speed and that seems credible at that moment. You read the shots fired were too rapid to come from one man and you assume that must be true. Then you read up on it and it all untangles. Because most conspiracies rely on one thing above all else. Wanting it to be true, on some level.

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Never heard the Bush missile drill one, that sounds hilarious.

or maybe I have and it was so weak I paid it no mind to remember it

It was back when Alex Jones was releasing all the shitty videos. There was one with photos showing dark spots under one plane that indicated a missile. Then they said the pentagon must’ve been a missive at that range and distance.


Was a shitty theory.

showa58taro wrote:

zombie wrote:

showa58taro wrote:

Tiggnutz wrote:

showa58taro wrote:I liked conspiracy videos. But I have started to distrust them more and more and dislike the format.

Elaborate brother

All conspiracy theories are persuasive when they are videos. People talking in a matter of fact you’ve, information being told but not sourced. Or sourced by some words that don’t link it through. It is easy to persuade people of dubious claims with enough bluster for me. Increasingly I see a video about the moon landing being a hoax, JFK being a big government cover up, 9/11 being a Bush missile drill etc and the video shows all these snippets and asks all these questions as if it’s a valid query. They control the narrative. And for that rude I don’t find myself clicking away to verify each claim I can’t square away or assessing evidence. I’m just going along for the ride.

And increasingly I find they all tend to be easily debunked now with more readily available sources. So it loses credibility for me. The best “conspiracy” for me tend to be hypotheses in writing with sources. And not the usual documentary style ones.

what makes a conspiracy hypothesis in writing more credible than one in video form? both would seem to have the same possibility of being proven untrue with official trusted sources, if you wanna go that way.

At least in writing I can fact check in real time cksimscand sources that they claim and link to.

Like the right and left wing fringe crap (your Breitbarts and LOLGOP
type blogs) you can read their obviously over the top hyperbole and then you can click the source data and read what it’s trying to twist. With videos you don’t often do that. It says a reputable physicist claims the tower cant fall at that speed and that seems credible at that moment. You read the shots fired were too rapid to come from one man and you assume that must be true. Then you read up on it and it all untangles. Because most conspiracies rely on one thing above all else. Wanting it to be true, on some level.

skepticism is healthy with any news or information, official or conspiracy. how many people want lee harvey oswald to be keenedy's lone assassin? what are the sources for that? it's just as much "believe this story cause you can trust me" as the conspiracies i've seen, only it has the added bit of "you're stupid or crazy if you don't believe this, because it's the official narrative". so yeah. it's all in what makes sense to you. don't just believe or disbelieve for the sake of it.

showa58taro wrote:

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:Never heard the Bush missile drill one, that sounds hilarious.

or maybe I have and it was so weak I paid it no mind to remember it

It was back when Alex Jones was releasing all the shitty videos. There was one with photos showing dark spots under one plane that indicated a missile. Then they said the pentagon must’ve been a missive at that range and distance.


Was a shitty theory.

Yes yes yes, I remember that one.

70 year old Nuck Castle is gonna play Michael Myers again?

We are at such a strange meta moment in entertainment where a studio thinks that is gonna be a draw.

i kind of understand bringing back jamie lee curtis (but i still don't like it). but you never even see myers' face. this is just dumb...

zombie wrote:i kind of understand bringing back jamie lee curtis (but i still don't like it). but you never even see myers' face. this is just dumb...

As much as I like JLC, I wish she had the conviction to say no. I love Halloween and Laurie was great, but every piece of news about this movie is a big turn off.

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i kind of understand bringing back jamie lee curtis (but i still don't like it). but you never even see myers' face. this is just dumb...

As much as I like JLC, I wish she had the conviction to say no. I love Halloween and Laurie was great, but every piece of news about this movie is a big turn off.

we still have h2 to go back to!

zombie wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:i kind of understand bringing back jamie lee curtis (but i still don't like it). but you never even see myers' face. this is just dumb...

As much as I like JLC, I wish she had the conviction to say no. I love Halloween and Laurie was great, but every piece of news about this movie is a big turn off.

we still have h2 to go back to!

This should have been LL Cool J and Busta Rymes teaming up to stop Michael. In the end, Michael beats them both in a rap battle.

It's stunning Castle was brought back. I know it's a thing of no one nailing his "walk" but I'd wager he doesn't quite walk the same as he did in 1978...but who knows. They might've had him do it to be sure before casting. They did cast a stuntman for the major work, so maybe he'll consult with the guy.

Foo wrote:As much as I like JLC, I wish she had the conviction to say no. I love Halloween and Laurie was great, but every piece of news about this movie is a big turn off.

But Danny McBride co-wrote it! It has to be good! :p