Cryptozoology forums > General Cryptozoology > Main lobby > view thread

Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman" From: busterggi posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 5:44pm  I know we can't stand one another but when you're right, you're right. They did a terrible job. Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman" From: AustraliaMegalania posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 6:06pm  AM, now this is interesting and something that I confess that I had not heard before. These other outbreaks you write of, was any "beast" killed to end these sprees and if so what sort of animal was it thought to be? MJ, there's to many links to post here, but if you google search " 1693 Benais killings", "Vivarais killings" they are all linked to the gevaudan beast even though they are a a century apart. i find it interesting that the victims and witnesses of these attacks would most likely of been familiar with wolves and their appearance. and yet nobody could identify this animal, only that it could be described "wolf-like." Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman" From: Wildphotographer posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 6:56pm  They did a terrible job This is your opinion, not a given fact. Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman" From: MJLehde posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 8:05pm  At what point does someones opinion have to part ways from a given fact? There is no reason that the two things can't be one in the same. If I were to say that I saw a movie in which George Washington picked up a machine gun at the Battle of Gettysburg and shot the Kaiser before flying away in his X-Wing to attack the Hindenburg it's possible that someone else might say that they'd seen the same show and found it very enjoyable even though I was left twitching on the floor twisted into a fetal position. Maybe the production values were high and the special effects first rate and the audience slapped each other on the back after the credits but that doesn't change the basic fact, yes "fact" that the makers got a whole bunch wrong. Now if someone doesn't care about historical and technical accuracy it might still make for an Oscar winner of a movie in their book. I will agree that saying "they did a terrible job" is subjective in the sense that by KK's standards the job was terrible because the makers of "The Real Wolfman" made many, many mistakes and false assumptions and then provided tests that didn't relate to the question to back up their foundationless theory. That these mistakes were made isn't really in dispute here and they were enough to ruin the show for some of us. You can try to claim otherwise but we're back to that George Washington shooting the Kaiser thing and you can try to say "well maybe he did shoot him" but frankly we do know and your saying otherwise doesn't help your cause. It maybe that you have different standards of what makes for a good show. The production values were very nice, the scenery was attractive and the cut aways were well done. The terrible job verdict is subjective and therefore is not a given fact. That they made many, many mistakes is not an opinion but a given fact. Perhaps the entertainment value trumps accuracy in your book. Subject: Re: History CH "The real Wolfman" From: KodiakKeith posted Mon, Nov 2 2009, 7:44pm  I don't know why you'd think that I can't stand you... There's only one person on this entire board that I actually dislike, and you aren't him.

Close Window