What are you watching on hulu, Netflix, etc?

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Anyway, about the Missing 411, most of the documentary was about one two year old boy who disappeared. I don't really want to say I think this person or that person is more suspect but all four of the adults are potential suspects. I tend to trust the boy's dad most except that he did most of the talking, talked over the mother when they were being interviewed at the same time, and if she did say something he would immediately repeat it so that it felt like he was trying to make their stories match.
It turns out they did some other interviews that aren't in the documentary where some people are saying their stories don't match.
But the weird part is that even if we believe them here is their story.
They drove out to this very remote campsite. They took her grandfather because he has cancer and this had been one of his favorite places. At the last minute the grandfather's friend went along. He is much younger about the age of the parents, and he knew the grandfather because he got paid to mow his lawn and do other small jobs. So there are four adults and the little boy.
The dad says that he and the boy's mother and the boy all slept in the Suburban. The grandfather slept in a trailer and the other guy had brought a tent. He said when he woke up they were already up and they were getting ready to make breakfast.
Then he says he and the boy's mother and the boy all went to town, which is a long drive on a very rocky road. The cops say the top speed is about five miles per hour. And it's seven miles. So this would have been at least a couple hours of driving to go back to town and the reason they gave was that the mother "needed feminine products," but then later the grandfather's friend said they drove back to town to buy gas.
To me neither makes sense. Wouldn't she have bought her feminine products while there were in town the night before? But maybe she didn't know what I long rocky road they were going on. And maybe they just said they needed gas to the other guy. It's possible.
But they say that the cashier in the town saw the boy and that a delivery guy saw that boy and both say that didn't happen. If the boy was with them no one remembers seeing him.
So they drove back to camp. The grandfather and his friend had caught some fish. The mother says that she and the boy's father and the extra guy were all going to walk down to the creek "to see if there were fish," but this is the place that the grandfather and his friend said they had just caught some fish.
The grandfather was going to stay at the camp and they were leaving the two year old with him. But then they got about halfway to the creek and saw the little boy following them. They asked if he wanted to come with them or stay with his grandpa and he started walking back towards his grandpa and they walked on to the creek.
According to them this is the last time they saw him.
But the grandfather says the boy did come back to the camp and he saw him off a ways by himself playing.
Next is the dad sees some minnows in the creek and wants the little boy to see them, so now after sending him back to the camp he goes to get him and they can't find him.

They Search and Rescue and people look for days and weeks but never find a trace.

Now, not in the documentary but fast forward to last year, about three years after the disappearance and the boy's grandmother, his mother's mother, who the dad says in the documentary "can get her (the boy's mother) to do anything" and who he "does't trust," has been evicted for non-payment of rent. The landlord gives the police permission to search the property and they find the jacket the little boy was wearing when he is claimed to have disappeared, along with some of his toys.
So apparently, the boy's disappearance is some kind of crime that his grandmother at least had knowledge of. AND they keep the evidence in their residence for three years and THEN abandon it when they have to move. I wonder why they didn't take that jacket and get rid of it? Guilt? or maybe afraid to be caught leaving their home with it?

But the thing is that's just one case and supposedly lots of people disappear in the woods and it's supposed to be some kind of paranormal thing. This one doesn't seem paranormal.

Another one doesn't go into as much detail but this boy disappeared in 1958 at a camp run by a Catholic priest and then his remains were found the next year. The pedos probably got him. And in 1958 people weren't allowed to say this even if they would have had suspicions.

So unless they have some cases with bright lights in the sky and missing time, etc, things that happen in UFO cases then I think it's probably a few missing people and a lot of crime.
 

Light Housework

Hunchback of Solow
Subscriber
Anyway, about the Missing 411, most of the documentary was about one two year old boy who disappeared. I don't really want to say I think this person or that person is more suspect but all four of the adults are potential suspects. I tend to trust the boy's dad most except that he did most of the talking, talked over the mother when they were being interviewed at the same time, and if she did say something he would immediately repeat it so that it felt like he was trying to make their stories match.
It turns out they did some other interviews that aren't in the documentary where some people are saying their stories don't match.
But the weird part is that even if we believe them here is their story.
They drove out to this very remote campsite. They took her grandfather because he has cancer and this had been one of his favorite places. At the last minute the grandfather's friend went along. He is much younger about the age of the parents, and he knew the grandfather because he got paid to mow his lawn and do other small jobs. So there are four adults and the little boy.
The dad says that he and the boy's mother and the boy all slept in the Suburban. The grandfather slept in a trailer and the other guy had brought a tent. He said when he woke up they were already up and they were getting ready to make breakfast.
Then he says he and the boy's mother and the boy all went to town, which is a long drive on a very rocky road. The cops say the top speed is about five miles per hour. And it's seven miles. So this would have been at least a couple hours of driving to go back to town and the reason they gave was that the mother "needed feminine products," but then later the grandfather's friend said they drove back to town to buy gas.
To me neither makes sense. Wouldn't she have bought her feminine products while there were in town the night before? But maybe she didn't know what I long rocky road they were going on. And maybe they just said they needed gas to the other guy. It's possible.
But they say that the cashier in the town saw the boy and that a delivery guy saw that boy and both say that didn't happen. If the boy was with them no one remembers seeing him.
So they drove back to camp. The grandfather and his friend had caught some fish. The mother says that she and the boy's father and the extra guy were all going to walk down to the creek "to see if there were fish," but this is the place that the grandfather and his friend said they had just caught some fish.
The grandfather was going to stay at the camp and they were leaving the two year old with him. But then they got about halfway to the creek and saw the little boy following them. They asked if he wanted to come with them or stay with his grandpa and he started walking back towards his grandpa and they walked on to the creek.
According to them this is the last time they saw him.
But the grandfather says the boy did come back to the camp and he saw him off a ways by himself playing.
Next is the dad sees some minnows in the creek and wants the little boy to see them, so now after sending him back to the camp he goes to get him and they can't find him.

They Search and Rescue and people look for days and weeks but never find a trace.

Now, not in the documentary but fast forward to last year, about three years after the disappearance and the boy's grandmother, his mother's mother, who the dad says in the documentary "can get her (the boy's mother) to do anything" and who he "does't trust," has been evicted for non-payment of rent. The landlord gives the police permission to search the property and they find the jacket the little boy was wearing when he is claimed to have disappeared, along with some of his toys.
So apparently, the boy's disappearance is some kind of crime that his grandmother at least had knowledge of. AND they keep the evidence in their residence for three years and THEN abandon it when they have to move. I wonder why they didn't take that jacket and get rid of it? Guilt? or maybe afraid to be caught leaving their home with it?

But the thing is that's just one case and supposedly lots of people disappear in the woods and it's supposed to be some kind of paranormal thing. This one doesn't seem paranormal.

Another one doesn't go into as much detail but this boy disappeared in 1958 at a camp run by a Catholic priest and then his remains were found the next year. The pedos probably got him. And in 1958 people weren't allowed to say this even if they would have had suspicions.

So unless they have some cases with bright lights in the sky and missing time, etc, things that happen in UFO cases then I think it's probably a few missing people and a lot of crime.
This reminds me Morrissey's List Of The Lost novel, because the plot is about a murdered boy.
 

The Chameleon

#KingGamma
Well, I mean it got some of the worst reviews I've ever seen by jealous writers whose own books were much bitter, I mean better, so really what did you expect? They probably returned them. Did you add little dedications so the store wouldn't take them back?
 

Light Housework

Hunchback of Solow
Subscriber
I also gave away several WPINOYB CD's. My walking buddy appreciated that, though he seems to prefer to download FLAC
 

Light Housework

Hunchback of Solow
Subscriber
Well, I mean it got some of the worst reviews I've ever seen by jealous writers whose own books were much bitter, I mean better, so really what did you expect? They probably returned them. Did you add little dedications so the store wouldn't take them back?
No, I didn't mar them at all.
 
Top Bottom