Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 She's not. He specifically added hoax to the what he was saying, he didn't correct himself to remove it. And one local affiliate isn't mainstream. it's not, but its on the news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It makes a difference when you hear him say some of these things out of his own mouth, with your own ears. No erasing it, no un-hearing it, no amount of underlining only what you want to see, read or hear will make it any different to my comprehension. He has made many slips and contradictions, Freudian slips, changing the story to fit his needs. Makes no sense to me that you have to deconstruct and reconstruct his sentences and words to defend or interpret what he is saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) It makes a difference when you hear him say some of these things out of his own mouth, with your own ears. No erasing it, no un-hearing it, no amount of underlining only what you want to see, read or hear will make it any different to my comprehension. He has made many slips and contradictions, Freudian slips, changing the story to fit his needs. Makes no sense to me that you have to deconstruct and reconstruct his sentences and words to defend or interpret what he is saying. Did someone erase words from Rick Dyer's sentence? And how can you underline "only what you want to see" in a sentence where you can see all the words? I don't think anyone is hiding anything from you. I think they're showing you something. But of course, you're free to think and believe whatever you like. No argument there. Edited February 19, 2013 by LeafTalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 There seems to be a lot of revising, and interpreting of statements necessary when it comes to this story. Same thing with Musky Allen. He meant a past invitation to Jeff Meldrum, yeah that's it, he just got his tenses mixed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 But of course, you're free to think and believe whatever you like. No argument there. Certainly. There wouldn't be much of an argument there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It was the 2/16/2013 show at 8:55. I just listened to it again. Quote"you all said the story wouldn't go main stream, you all actually said another hoax would not go main stream especially if I was involved. Well I got news for you, it has gone main stream" I think he was saying to those who THINK THIS IS A HOAX>>>> it was said another hoax would not go mainstream....so if that's TRUE, and the current story is indeed going public>>>>>then by your OWN ADMISSION, this can't be a hoax. This was what he was inferring by that stament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I think he was saying to those who THINK THIS IS A HOAX>>>> it was said another hoax would not go mainstream....so if that's TRUE, and the current story is indeed going public>>>>>then by your OWN ADMISSION, this can't be a hoax. This was what he was inferring by that stament. I'm impresed that was a full twist with a half gainer......judges score....9.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Ronn1 it really doesnt matter does it? RD's a proven four time hoaxer so his word is no good. Now he slips up and admits its a hoax. Your putting all your faith into MA's testimony a testimony in which he lied three times in. Thin very very thin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm impresed that was a full twist with a half gainer......judges score....9.5 Yep...but thing is..THAT IS WHAT HE'S SAYING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 No its not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) I'm impresed that was a full twist with a half gainer......judges score....9.5 Rolling on the floor laughing & gasping. Edited February 19, 2013 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Pretty sure if you asked Musky what Rick meant by that, he'd say "Rick meant that back in 2009, he was sure that no one would pay attention to him again, especially the mainstream media" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Deleted duplicate Edited February 19, 2013 by DantheMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Delete duplicate. This board get buggy when it has to change pages? Edited February 19, 2013 by Oonjerah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Ronn1 it really doesnt matter does it? RD's a proven four time hoaxer so his word is no good. Now he slips up and admits its a hoax. Your putting all your faith into MA's testimony a testimony in which he lied three times in. Thin very very thin! read my explanation of his statement carefully..he is NOT admitting this is a hoax. I would suggest you set aside his past SINGLE hoax...and simply ask yourself...did he recruit Musky? Listen to Musky..just listen without a *hoax* filter in your ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts