a question about ''the wolf pack ''episode
if these things hate light so much,why didn't the family turn the lights on,instead of hiding in the dark?
shareBecause that story is fake if u look up this episode on here there's a lot of mistakes.
If you have doubt about this story, ask https://www.facebook.com/shelley.rockwellmartin.1?hc_location=stream. Or if you respect her privacy, read this: http://dogman-monsters-are-real.blogspot.com/2013/08/wolf-pack-shelley-rockwell-martin.html.
share@TMIGUY - despite being a great admirer of this show, 'Wolf pack' was, frankly, not an episode I liked either. Critics/sceptics at the time it aired, managed to raise some very valid questions about, & objections to it.
Nonetheless, your post raises a very different perspective on things. Albeit the Facebook link didn't open for me (i.e., "Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment"), the other one did. It places a short but interesting angle on the events as they were depicted in the show. Still, if you could briefly fill us in on the gist of what was said in the f/b page too, when you get a chance please, it would be much appreciated. Thank you.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
The Facebook page allows you to ask the witness questions about her experiences. If you are the kind of person who would violate her privacy to do so, this is the wife in the episode. She has her daughter friended on her profile, so you can pester the little girl who sat up with her parents in the middle of the night. You can also accuse her mom of lying to the 911 operators and call them stupid for going into a bedroom and turning out the lights and waiting for morning. The daughter's name is Chelsea. I guess you can take away that the people interviewed are real people.Or you can concentrate on how unbelievable the show is.
Edit: by the way, when you reply directly in these forums, you don't need to use the @username address system, because it replies directly to the post replied to. It does not notify anyone else so it would help you to reply only to the post you intend to reply to. So, if you reply to the last person in the thread and use @blahdeblah in the message, it is very unlikely that blahdeblah will ever read your reply.
Steady on, I liked your other posts, TMIGUY, but I'm not out "to pester" anyone. And as for your suggesting that I'd "accuse her mom of lying to the 911 operators and call them stupid for going into a bedroom and turning out the lights and waiting for morning", where, I wonder, in my posts did I even say such a thing? Others, to my knowledge, said so, but that wasn't my contention. Of course, if I did, then you'd possibly be on to something, but I put it to you that I didn't. And I trust you might accept that.
By the way, my default method for viewing this forum (& all other IMDB forums) is "FLAT", and has been so since 2007 in fact, and not "inline" for various reasons; anyway, suffice to say, I prefer that method; however, it does sometimes mean that I may at times continue to use the @blahdeblah convention. I also may reply to a post, and sometimes several, out of turn, as you may see if you check my posting history, hence it clarifies things greatly when I use the "@" convention. Hope this explains my alleged stabs at madness for you. If I too, used the inline method of viewing posts, as you do, then I would accept that you're (again) onto something. But I don't.
PS: in eleven years of posting on IMDB's boards, you're, in all honesty, the first to take issue with my use of '@'posternym. Please excuse same, albeit I'd welcome your tackling instead some of the things I actually say, if you like. ;-)
PPS: If that's the worst you can say of my writing, then I must say thank you for the inadvertent compliment, good sir.
-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox
Sorry. I didn't have enough context to presuppose your methodology. Also, you are out of the ordinary enough to be misjudged at the time of my previous reply in this thread. That symptom has since been alleviated.
My non-replies were meant as agreements generally, and my inadvertent compliments were entirely intentional, fellow seeker.
By the way, Facebook, by definition, is way too public to be anything but a self-inflicted invasion of privacy. My mention of it should have been its own definition of anathema, 'though some mistreat their pages as self-promotional red light districts. (not the lady in question, un-surprisedly to my belief)