Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Not sure Jacki. I guess it's difficult to try and gauge the size of an object at such a distance. The MK Davis breakdown does suggest differences in colouration between the top and bottom halves of the object in question, this points to clothing being worn of course. Hey Mark..take a look at my Avitar...LOL. Yes...I'm certain Marble is a hoax. The behavior of the BF is just too much>>>.waiving in protest? The legs are waayyyy to skinny as well. The filmer has and odd demeanor..almost matter of fact and *leading the witness* style. The shelter looked far too *neat* and contrived as well. There are several other things I had problems with as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 At this moment in time I cannot rule out that Minnow are not involved this this hoax scenario. The reason why my 'source' (who set up and took part in the filming in San Antonio, NE India and Sumatra) could not give me a definitive answer on the Dyer question is that she is unaware of Minnow's stance on this. Although freelance she expects to work with Minnow in the future so completely unwilling to let the 'cat out of the bag'. I was encouraged to contact Minnow, which I have done, asking if a press release could be published to put the outlandish claims surrounding the content of their film. Guess what? Silence. This points to a couple of things. Either Minnow are way too busy to get involved in this 'controversy' which is most likely scenario or Minnow are aware of Dyer's claims and are more than happy that people are talking about their film way before it's release. For a production company this can only be a good thing right? Jacki makes a good point about Minnow and Morgan Matthews. These guys are very serious film makers focusing on the historical and factual. My niggle here is that they can happily keep quiet and let this run it course. I did point out to them however, that by maintaining their silence, they may lose the goodwill of the BF community which is something they may not want when releasing a film regarding this subject matter. Steve - Very interesting. I personally have no doubt about what you saw. I've got a feeling that we'll all get the chance to see this clip over the next few months as developments unfold. LeafTalker - I very much hope that my 'plain' speaking did not offend in any way. We all have different ways of getting our points across. Jacki and Violet have fought their corner superbly throughout this thread. Although we may not always agree with another's point of view we will always respect these views. Differing viewpoints are core to any forum. Anyway LT welcome to the board and I look forward to your input over the next few weeks and months. J & V are quite correct. I am mostly harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I was encouraged to contact Minnow, which I have done, asking if a press release could be published to put the outlandish claims surrounding the content of their film. Guess what? Silence. This points to a couple of things. Either Minnow are way too busy to get involved in this 'controversy' which is most likely scenario or Minnow are aware of Dyer's claims and are more than happy that people are talking about their film way before it's release. I disagree with this. For a production company this can only be a good thing right? Or they simply just do not want to comment on their film before its release which is quite often the case with all film makers? Jacki makes a good point about Minnow and Morgan Matthews. These guys are very serious film makers focusing on the historical and factual. My niggle here is that they can happily keep quiet and let this run it course. I did point out to them however, that by maintaining their silence, they may lose the goodwill of the BF community which is something they may not want when releasing a film regarding this subject matter. They would certainly lose the goodwill of the BF community if their film contained a hoax and therefore was poking fun of us. No way!! I will emigrate if that happens!! Steve - Very interesting. I personally have no doubt about what you saw. I've got a feeling that we'll all get the chance to see this clip over the next few months as developments unfold. Your kidding right? haha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) I have just posted another scenario on Dyer's blog (not *approved* for viewing yet). Somone there speculated that Dyer could be using some *creative* taxidermy* for the body and Musky to review. I have been entertaining this idea for some time, should Musky not be in on this hoax. This was my post there: "This is actually a third possibilty..other than the other two mentioned previously. This *body* will be FROZEN SOLID and not subject to close examination by Musky. In essence, it will be a SOLID BLOCK! Dyer could have cobbled together an impressive BF body...how's Musky going to *probe it*? Besides...I don't think Dyer will allow him to touch the body" Dyer may also simply have a very good body PROP..again, this is FROZEN SOLID. Even if it's not FROZEN SOLID.... If Musky can't touch or probe the *body* how's he going to verify it as a real creature? Edited February 3, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Wouldn't a "serious" film show both sides? We don't know the content besides that it deals with monsters and the men that hunt them. Covering hoaxing, especially since there's been big ones in every aspect of Cryptozoology, isn't a far-fetched notion for a part of the film is it? Like Mark's said, they haven't supported or denied what's going on with RD. Even bad publicity is good publicity. They personally aren't poking fun of the BF community if they covered it. They're exposing it. If people believe because of RD's claims alone without proof, it's their own fault. Same with those that don't believe. Minnow would only be at fault if they said it was real, then it's revealed to be false. That hasn't happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 ^^^^ Add to this the fact Minnow KNEW Dyer had hoaxed in 2008. This lends credence to them covering the *HOAX* aspect of BF community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) Thank you for posting that video about Mathews, I am watching it right now, as much as I can until I am interrupted. It really actually helps me see even more how a director such as Mathews could be drawn to a character such as Rick Dyer, with his sensitive aesthetic and ability to reveal people's complexities. Mathews has a true passion for cinematography as an art form, as well as an ethical sensibility, and I am imaging there will be some great footage in Sumatra as well as insight into the obsessive nature of monster hunters. If there is footage of a real Bigfoot in this documentary, it is definitely the culmination of many years hard work trying to obtain vivid footage of elusive creatures and unusual situations in life. If people cannot believe that Dyer would be the one to finally end the BF mystery, maybe they can believe that Morgan Mathews has an instinct , or I don't know has been lucky enough to capture some rare moments, due to his craftsmanship and drive. In fact putting an obsessive Bigfoot hunter and an equally obsessive filmmaker together may have been a brilliant idea in hindsight. It also makes more of what Dyer says ring true, how the crew was outraged with him, but at the end of the day, so to speak, they love him. I can also see why they would keep everything in lock-down. This guy who has been trying to make award winning films finally gets the money shot, who cares about Bigfoot being discovered, this guy finally has a chance at an artistic coup that no one will be able to top. He would be ecstatic and be thrilled to reveal it on the BBC or in a film festival. Edited February 3, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I have just posted another scenario on Dyer's blog (not *approved* for viewing yet). Somone there speculated that Dyer could be using some *creative* taxidermy* for the body and Musky to review. I have been entertaining this idea for some time, should Musky not be in on this hoax. This was my post there: "This is actually a third possibilty..other than the other two mentioned previously. This *body* will be FROZEN SOLID and not subject to close examination by Musky. In essence, it will be a SOLID BLOCK! Dyer could have cobbled together an impressive BF body...how's Musky going to *probe it*? Besides...I don't think Dyer will allow him to touch the body" Dyer may also simply have a very good body PROP..again, this is FROZEN SOLID. Even if it's not FROZEN SOLID.... If Musky can't touch or probe the *body* how's he going to verify it as a real creature? Yes well I have to admit that even I wonder how a body would look when frozen. One thing, am thinking of all those crime programmes and they go to the forensic place where bodies are stored. You know the ones where they pull out a drawer in the wall. Are they actually frozen or kept in a temperature which stops then from decomposing? When forensics are carrying out autopsies on bodies, they dont appear to be like ice blocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 I have just posted another scenario on Dyer's blog (not *approved* for viewing yet). Somone there speculated that Dyer could be using some *creative* taxidermy* for the body and Musky to review. I have been entertaining this idea for some time, should Musky not be in on this hoax. This was my post there: "This is actually a third possibilty..other than the other two mentioned previously. This *body* will be FROZEN SOLID and not subject to close examination by Musky. In essence, it will be a SOLID BLOCK! Dyer could have cobbled together an impressive BF body...how's Musky going to *probe it*? Besides...I don't think Dyer will allow him to touch the body" Dyer may also simply have a very good body PROP..again, this is FROZEN SOLID. Even if it's not FROZEN SOLID.... If Musky can't touch or probe the *body* how's he going to verify it as a real creature? Why would the body be frozen in a block of ice,lol! Do people even do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Wouldn't a "serious" film show both sides? But that idea would still entail them watching RD create a hoax. It would therefore be promoting a hoax scenario. No, I just dont buy it. He would be ecstatic and be thrilled to reveal it on the BBC or in a film festival. Brilliantly put VX and even more reason why the director wouldnt want to give out bits of information to the general public prior to its release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Minnow are not responsible for Dyer's actions and they certainly don't have to intervi Dyer wasn't cast by Minnow by accident. Dyer is in this film to add a certain type of character to the mix. We have the CFZ guys adding the passion and the credibility and then we will have the 'black sheep' Dyer bringing his own special brand of monster hunter/killer. The hoax aspect is certainly something we cannot discount. Dyer's previous hoaxed picture attempts have been posted here. If he is making substantial funds from this activity then perhaps his methodology is also becoming more sophisticated? The mask/model in the camper vid is much better than we've seen from him before. We of course cannot rule out Minnow's involvement regarding the mask/model. The 'star' of the camper video may have a role in the documentary as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 (edited) @ Mark. Thanks for sending an email. Quite a few people here have also emailed the company to no avail,lol. They are keeping a very tight ship! Interesting that your friend will not reveal more, even give you a little hint, I imagine that all that work with the company want to keep a good relationship; that actually gives us more of an idea about why there are no leaks. Edited February 3, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 In his show Dyer says he specifically wants Musky to cut a sample from the BF body as proof this really happened? That means Musky would be able to order a DNA test of the tissue if he wanted to. If this is a giant hoax it will soon come out because Dyer said the footage of the killing would be broadcast live worldwide by the BBC in March. I don’t think the BBC would participate in a hoax. Maybe someone who has ties with the BBC can find something out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Steve - Very interesting. I personally have no doubt about what you saw. I've got a feeling that we'll all get the chance to see this clip over the next few months as developments unfold. btw...I have been so rude and dismissive of SteveByrnes 'film' he has seen, I even posted a clip of Rod Hull and Emu as a comparison LOL However, considering I have basically accused him of either being completely mistaken or lying, I would have thought that he would have reproached me somewhat. Wouldnt you? I would be livid ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 Even if it started this week, a DNA test wouldn't be finished by March. So it wouldn't interfere in anyway regardless of what it showed or didn't show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts