• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

FT377

I have always preferred cats too dogs, and now I know why.
 
Liked the IHTM about the see-through shrew, sounded authentic because why would you make that up?
 
I've only just finished reading the previous four issues (I was all backed up there), new one arrived yesterday. I am Sisyphus and FT is the enormous boulder I must role up the hill, the forum is the beetle tickling my feet in distraction.
 
Reading the bit about cat-killer{s) in London and how the given explanations so far do not appear to stack up. and how there indeed does appear to have been one disturbed person brought to book for serial animal cruelty but no plausible explanation as to why.

Now this is going to be distasteful and I'll try to keep the description general and not to go into specifics.

But a few years ago, I read about a pretty nauseating sexual practice which involves - as an example - women in high heels and fetish gear crushing small animals underfoot. This is apparently a thing and porn videos are made of this sort of thing. The original article was a newspaper report concerning a woman who did this sort of thing for cash being sent down for it. People make these videos, other people want to see them, and the motivation is money.

Now we know - dogging, the possibility of discovery, risky sex in public places - adds a frission to "normal" sex. There's a market for this sort of thing in porn videos.

reading about the crushing and battering aspect involved in these killings.

What if it isn't just a lone sick person. Are we dealing with a group here - some doing the killing, others filming it?

What if films are out there somewhere, in the murkier corners of the Internet, which could be traced back to the places where these things happened, like the places with a multiude of small animals which have been repeatedly visited?

Again, all conjecture and no proof - but I don't think anyone's gone down this line of thought before.

Links quoted may not be what people want to read. I found them a bit hard going.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_fetish

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/may/19/ukcrime.tonythompson
 
Got mine today, was disappointed that Jenny Randles' section was missing. Looking good apart from that though. I was interested to read the 5-star review of Circle of Deceit: A Terrifying Alien Agenda in Ireland and Beyond, have been seeing it on amazon and was waiting to hear more about its contents before reading it.
 
Jenny Randles' section was missing seemingly so Peter Brookesmith could give Nick Pope a massive, two page kicking. Which, you know, is fair enough.
 
Found this issue a bit meh, and also missed Jenny Randles. The main articles seemed over shadowed by the regulars this month.

I enjoyed Hole In The Ground but wouldnt have gone the full 5 stars on it - it never quite got too Babadook quality imho. But thats what different tastes are for :)

Still better than a copy of the Daily Mail every century though.
 
I'm annoyed the promised piece on Chick tracts was absent. There's been quite a few things in the Coming Next Month section lately that don't come the next month.
 
Loved the classic timeslip account of the two girls, who had a close encounter with a steam train, on a long-since abandoned railway track.
 
I'm annoyed the promised piece on Chick tracts was absent. There's been quite a few things in the Coming Next Month section lately that don't come the next month.
Well, you know, plans can change (as the Speaker said to the Prime Minister). No reason to get too annoyed - sometimes things get delayed, or stuff doesn't work out, or more important subjects arise, or something gets in the way, or like that. Don't take it too personally. The article will show up eventually. Or maybe it won't. I seem to remember The White Pyramid piece being promised for over a year before it finally got printed. So it goes. Life goes on...
 
In the opening editorial of this issue, it was asked if we think that FT is too skeptic or scientific-y these days as opposed to being more classic Fortean. I would say that yes, the pole has shifted from Fortean neutrality to "skepticism with a sense of humor". Not always, but the pole shifted a while back. I'd have to go back through my back catalogue to find some prime offenders in terms of articles, but since it got brought up in the editorial, I thought I'd say that I agree as an overall impression.
 
I'm annoyed the promised piece on Chick tracts was absent. There's been quite a few things in the Coming Next Month section lately that don't come the next month.
look on it as a fortean version of Tantric sex, perhaps, infinitely deferred gratification...
 
look on it as a fortean version of Tantric sex, perhaps, infinitely deferred gratification...
I wonder if copyright had something to do with it. An article on Chick tracts would be pretty dull without examples.
 
Back
Top