Actually I have and it’s why I said what I said.
Sorry if I got your panties in a wad by pointing out the obvious flaw in your logic.
There is no flaw in Zeppo's logic whatsoever.
On the other hand, to call your reasoning "wrong" would be to give it more merit than it deserves.
You have made at least two errors of logic.
The first one was when you mistakenly concluded that my original statement was equivalent to asserting that, "So when a camera shakes then that means its fake?"
Not correct.
Then you compounded the problem by mistakenly concluding, "If it would have stayed firm (like a movie), then you would have believed it", which is a fallacy that roughly follows in the pattern of denying the antecedent
BTW, no panties, no wad...