(10-03-2016, 10:52 AM)DuckforcoveR Wrote: While I can respect the concept of not "naming names" in hopes of exacting some type of revenge, he said his "owner" in Seattle killed a child and made them eat it....
Name the damn names even if to give closure to a family who may have lost their child. I don't care that the owner isn't alive anymore, you ate a freakin kid who was sacrificed and NOW it's like "oh, I don't want to give details that may actually prove my story".
Exactly DFC, it's a story that catches the imagination and makes the listener gasp in it's
terrible reveal. But there's no proof and when one is supposedly dealing with serious, adult
claims of death, hidden secrets and the use of public funds, surely a request for evidence to
these incidents would not be too demanding?
Yet the person recording the interview never asks the questions that would derail the story
from a person who lived among the stars and ate human flesh at someone's bidding.
Does the interviewer press Mr. Rodrigues about these awful acts...? No.
He asks him about going to the moon instead!
Mr. Rodrigues wishes not to cause discomfort to the child-eating family and ill-treating
military people from researchers and says his account is only in the name of disclosure.
Yet, the loss of the supposed missing-children's family means nothing to him.
This story belongs around a campfire.
Edith Head Gives Good Wardrobe.