That two-hour interrogation doc vs the 10-minute debunk video, which one do you trust?

Last week I watched a 2 hour deep dive about the JFK files that painted this wild picture, then found a 10 minute breakdown showing half the audio was from a different event in 1963. I leaned on the long doc for days, told my crew about it in the truck, and got roasted when the short clip popped up on someone's phone. Do you guys weigh source length or source credibility more, or is it just whoever makes the better edit these days?

1 comments

1 Comment

felix_black3d ago

My uncle once swore up and down that a grainy camcorder video proved Bigfoot was real, turned out the "creature" was just a guy in a gorilla suit at a county fair. He'd been telling that story for years before someone zoomed in and spotted the zipper. Point is, people get attached to whatever they heard first, and the longer the video, the more time you got to build a whole world around it in your head. A quick debunk feels like a slap in the face because it kills all that work you did. So I don't trust length or credibility, I just wait a week and see which version gets shared by the guys who actually read the source files.