It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Houston Film Fest: "Very Threatening Calls" from Government Officials Forcing "Vaxxed" Pulled

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: Boadicea

Or, it could very well be that the film makers are exaggerating or manipulating the facts to suit their claims. They are currently on a spin spree for exposure, and nothing grabs free exposure than a possible scandal, conspiracy or claims of censorship.



Exactly.

It isn't hard to spin this is as something it isn't .... in order to drum up additional interest in the movie.


They made up the letter from Hunter Todd?




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: Boadicea

Or, it could very well be that the film makers are exaggerating or manipulating the facts to suit their claims. They are currently on a spin spree for exposure, and nothing grabs free exposure than a possible scandal, conspiracy or claims of censorship.



I would say "and" rather than "or." I don't think there's any doubt that the film makers are playing this for all it's worth. Never let a crisis go to waste so to speak!

But the film festival chairman made it possible. The chairman contacted them to say he had been threatened by Houston officials, and that they threatened to cut off his grants, and that he could not afford that so he was cancelling... then his story changed...

It's possible he was working in collusion with the film makers -- wouldn't surprise me in the least. It wouldn't surprise me if he was playing both sides against the middle either. Whatever the real story is, he and he alone is responsible for his part in all this. As is (are) the Houston official(s) that stooped to financial extortion for their own purposes.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

Woohoo!!! (Patting myself on the back... but I know it's thanks to you!)

I did mean to say that thimerosal is not used in today's vaccines also but I forgot


LOL Not thanks to me, you only have yourself to thank!




originally posted by: MotherMayEye
They made up the letter from Hunter Todd?


Nobody has seen a screenshot of the email and Todd Hunter has denied being threatened.......
I still agree with Mystikmushroom: this is all a well thought up marketing stunt.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
Nobody has seen a screenshot of the email and Todd Hunter has denied being threatened.......
I still agree with Mystikmushroom: this is all a well thought up marketing stunt.


Yeah, i get that. But Hunter Todd has spoken about this and hasn't denied he wrote the letter. Or has he?

And how did the film distributors get the mayor's opinion spot-on in the letter if they made it up?

Too many inconsistencies and questions, IMO. I'm not at a point to declare it a publicity stunt.
edit on 8-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I sincerely doubt that Todd has been working in collusion, he's busy organizing a film festival. Don't think he has much free time to dabble in such nonsense. Besides, it would be surprising if he acted in any way that would jeopardize his professional credibility, as he has no skin in the game.

I also think the city of Houston has taken this as a genuine conflict of interest. Houston is one of the top medical research centers in the world. It's hard to justify funding the screening of an anti-vax film when it has been determined that the premise of the documentary is fraudulent at its core.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Yeah, i get that. But Hunter Todd has spoken about this and hasn't denied he wrote the letter. Or has he?

And how did the film distributors get the mayor's opinion spot-on in the letter if they made it up?

Too many inconsistencies and questions, IMO. I'm not at a point to declare it a publicity stunt.


That email doesn't look like a professional email and Hunter Todd is a professional who wants to keep his reputation (as Maria-stardust pointed out).

Todd Hunter never denied writing the email, but perhaps he doesn't know about such an email circulating the net?

In the Houston Chronicle article he denied any pressure from city officials, which contradicts the email.




posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust

So did the film distributor write the letter and falsely claim Hunter Todd wrote it?

I am not picking up what you are throwing down here.

Someone wrote that letter and it just so happens that the mayor says he did put pressure on Todd to pull it. I don't what the exact truth is here, but it seems to me that Hunter Todd may very well be in collusion with someone -- either with the film distributors or he thought he was covering for the mayor when he said he wasn't contacted by him.
edit on 8-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

In the Houston Chronicle article he denied any pressure from city officials, which contradicts the email.



But in the link Pardon posted, the mayor's office says he did contact Hunter Todd.

ETA: And, BTW, I have worked with many professionals who don't always act professional -- specifically when I worked at a state Performing Arts Center that has their own annual film festival.


edit on 8-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
To no one in particular...

I went back to the source article and the first to report on it and this is how it is introduced/described:


The following letter was sent to Philippe Diaz, Chairman of Cinema Libre, Distributor of Vaxxed: From Coverup To Catastrophe, on April 5, at 8:56 am. The situation has now apparently escalated to criminal conduct and extortion. We urge all media to investigate immediately. –Celia Farber, Editor


(Source: The Truth Barrier)

Note: I'm assuming it was an email, especially given the exact time received, but she does call it a "letter," which could indicate snail mail I guess.

Never say never... but I can't imagine that Todd Hunter wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops if he hadn't written that message. And that message is far more than a simple professional cancellation notice. Everything points to Hunter being an active player in all this.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

If I were a gambling woman, I would bet that any communications between Todd and the film makers would be break down as follows:

Todd and the film makers converse by phone, then Todd follows up with an official letter or email. The film makers, being indignant and pissed, exaggerate their claims.

Either way, it seems to be a matter of coincidence that the mayor's office was in communication with Todd as revelations of the film being screen elsewhere surfaced. As such, the film no longer qualified to be shown at the event.

A professional, such as Todd, would not implicate himself in such a way to damage his career.

This seems to be more of a case of sour grapes and an opportunity to further create publicity for the film.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Just bear in mind that Celia Farber is an HIV denialist who has been accused of being a liar and fraud before. I wouldn't be surprised she is also not being genuine (again).



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: maria_stardust

No, the mayor's office specifically said they contacted Todd because they didn't support a film that could dissuade people from vaccinating -- or something along those lines.

And it wasn't the filmmakers who say they got the letter -- it was the distributor.

I agree with Boadicea, Hunter Todd would vehemently deny writing such a letter if he didn't -- 'professional' as he is assumed to be. And he clearly is aware of it.

Besides, Cinema Libre appears to be a professional distributor, too. Vaxxed isn't the only film they distribute. Hunter Todd doesn't deserve all the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


So did the film distributor write the letter and falsely claim Hunter Todd wrote it?


That's the thing. I haven't seen anything indicating that Hunter denies writing the initial message -- and the claims therein.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, the mayor's office holds the stance that there is a conflict of interest, considering the city partially funds this event.

My contention is that Todd realized that the film no longer qualified to be shown at the festival because it is being screened elsewhere at about the same time the mayor's office was in contact with him. Apparently, the decision to pull the film had already been made.

At least, that's my understanding of events.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, the mayor's office holds the stance that there is a conflict of interest, considering the city partially funds this event.

My contention is that Todd realized that the film no longer qualified to be shown at the festival because it is being screened elsewhere at about the same time the mayor's office was in contact with him. Apparently, the decision to pull the film had already been made.

At least, that's my understanding of events.



I think you missed this link a few pages back, maybe?

KHOU


Now, the controversy has rolled into Houston, where Mayor Sylvester Turner took steps to stop its scheduled screening at the city’s international film festival.

“We just couldn’t have city funding encouraging people not to have their kids vaccinated,” said Janice Evans, a spokesperson for the mayor.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Boadicea

Just bear in mind that Celia Farber is an HIV denialist who has been accused of being a liar and fraud before. I wouldn't be surprised she is also not being genuine (again).


Haha! My next step was to check out Celia Farber! I noticed she was from Sweden/New York at her website... but I saw a rather disturbing follow-up article to the source, and it made me wonder about her... she didn't strike me as especially um professional.

It also struck me as strange (though only in hindsight!) that she was publishing a letter written to someone else, with no explanation of how it came into her possession, nor if she had the sender/recipient's permission to publish, etc.

I want to hear more from everyone involved... I don't trust any of em!



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: Boadicea

Just bear in mind that Celia Farber is an HIV denialist who has been accused of being a liar and fraud before. I wouldn't be surprised she is also not being genuine (again).


Haha! My next step was to check out Celia Farber! I noticed she was from Sweden/New York at her website... but I saw a rather disturbing follow-up article to the source, and it made me wonder about her... she didn't strike me as especially um professional.

It also struck me as strange (though only in hindsight!) that she was publishing a letter written to someone else, with no explanation of how it came into her possession, nor if she had the sender/recipient's permission to publish, etc.

I want to hear more from everyone involved... I don't trust any of em!


Cinema Libre doesn't mention her specific coverage of the email/letter in question, in their press link, but they do mention the essential content of the letter she published...and infowars' coverage of it:

Link


edit on 8-4-2016 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, I did read that. Hence, city's stance of a conflict of interest.

The end result is that the film makers are receiving an overwhelming amount of publicity, which is a win for them as they want to generate as much interest as possible. People interested in seeing the film will be able to do so soon enough. There's no doubt in my mind that it will be playing on a movie channel or public broadcast station in the near future.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: maria_stardust
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Yes, I did read that. Hence, city's stance of a conflict of interest.

The end result is that the film makers are receiving an overwhelming amount of publicity, which is a win for them as they want to generate as much interest as possible. People interested in seeing the film will be able to do so soon enough. There's no doubt in my mind that it will be playing on a movie channel or public broadcast station in the near future.


I guess it doesn't make sense to me that you have deduced the mayor's office had to take steps to stop a screening that was already cancelled.

They say they took steps to stop its "scheduled screening."


Now, the controversy has rolled into Houston, where Mayor Sylvester Turner took steps to stop its scheduled screening at the city’s international film festival.

“We just couldn’t have city funding encouraging people not to have their kids vaccinated,” said Janice Evans, a spokesperson for the mayor.


Hence the reason I figured you must have missed the link.



posted on Apr, 8 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It was originally scheduled, then pulled when it was discovered the film was being screen elsewhere.

The communications with the mayor's office are true, but a matter of coincidental timing. The city wasn't aware at the time that the film was in the process of being pulled due to a disqualification.

So, yes, the city wanted the film pulled for the reasons previously stated. And, yes, the festival decided to pull the film because it was determined to being screened elsewhere and would no longer be considered a premiere.

The timing is one of happenstance.




top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join