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...
Okay here is your post,
“I especially like the phony Blair Witch Project camera shake.”
then you said,
“The first one was when you mistakenly concluded that my original statement was equivalent to asserting that, when a camera shakes then that means its fake”.
Okay well I’m still waiting other than “not correct” with no response other than that.
Please elaborate what you mean by “phony Blair Witch Project camera shake”?
Guess you have never heard of sarcasm???
The purpose of an antecedent(like sarcasm ) is to expose how flawed your premiss and logic is in your original point.