Guest VioletX Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Biscardi is the only confirmed person in the film so..... There is at least another person other than Dyer, I know nothing confirming Biscardi. There is my source that I mentioned and I believe Mark alluded to CFZ. Edited February 11, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I can't imagine that anybody with a shred of sense would notify the state & ask if they could please move their Bigfoot body to Nevada. At least not if they had any hope of actually getting to keep it. They would do whatever it took to get it there, not disclose the location, & if Texas wanted it, they could line up with all the other government agencies that are probably keenly interested in getting their hands on it. There is absolutely no chance that the local "authorities" were notified. Whoever said that was probably just trying to cover their a**. On the other hand, they better get some pictures released pretty soon, before one of those agencies finds it & it disappears. "On the other hand, they better get some pictures released pretty soon, before one of those agencies finds it & it disappears" Ain't that the truth! Yes, I thought about that, too. Sorta played Devil's Advocate & asked, How does one move a poached Bf body from state to state and get away with it? Hypothetical: RD, Minnow, the property owner & probably the County of Bexar all know where the film shoot was. The Bf was filmed in the afternoon and later that night when he died. All this will show the creature was killed in TX. Even moreso when the film is released & Bf body put on display (as per press release or rumor). The film will show whether the Bf tried to attack a cameraman. However, RD shot him before that, provoking a survival reaction. Bf does not yet exist officially and so is not considered homonid/human, closer to man than gorillas and chimps. A DA likely would not charge RD with murder especially if he passes the matter off as misidentification. But at the least, Bf is big game, like a bear, and RD has no tags. He apparently agreed to help Minnow film a Bf, not to kill one. However, I did read a post a few days ago that claims TX has considered this possibility, and shooting Bf is legal there. I am sure Bipto can offer true instruction on this. As well as who owns the body and can they move it. Long story short, the hoax becomes reality: Of Monsters and Men opens at the South by Southwest Film Festival, Austin, TX (March 8-17) or Tribeca Film Festival, NY (April). The Body is on display -- how common is this a film festivals? SOP, perhaps? Austin is better, IMO, 'cause that way, TX has no proof that RD took the body out of state. Neither do we, of course. While the legality is fuzzy here, as in unestablished, the Bf is extremely valuable. If St of TX legislature or Fish & Game Dept did, jokingly, say, "Killing Bigfoot is legal in Texas," this would be brushed aside perhaps. I expect it would be decided that a Bf living in TX, killed in TX, belongs to Texas, and if not, income generated by said dead Bf is taxable in TX. If the body is now in NV, never to return to the Lone Star state, I think there would be Dyer consequences. Suits delaying Bf profits. (I hate writing long posts. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) This only gets better from an absurd, ridicules stand point....great entertainment It's says in the above link the shooting occured years ago and the shooters identify is kept confidential.....opps guess it can't be RD so what say those that believe everything they read on the Internet? Edited February 11, 2013 by Cervelo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Afraid so Norseman. Incredibly some are uber convinced that tricky Ricky bagged a big guy. Not convinced that there is only two monster hunters in this movie. There are definitely three locations and three different 'monster hunts'. Not sure where Biscardi fits in. Not heard his name in connection with the film yet. I'm not *uber convinced*. It's simple a matter of believing (or not) Musky's observations. I don't think it's at all obvious he lied (shill if you will). Those who think he did so, are using the *ad hominem* argument to dismiss his account. One's position on this whole thing comes down to either accepting what he says as true or false (or witholding judgment). Only other possibility is that he was hoaxed into viewing a mock up...highly unlikely, but possible. Edited February 11, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Wow! Great find by the way. My jaw hit the ground (it was already there so I had to close my mouth in order to drop it again), now I cant stop laughing! Maybe Biscardi is one of the investors. TOO MUCH! Thanks, I posted it many many pages ago, lol. We seem to go round and round and round with this saga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Dyer consequences. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Afraid so Norseman. Incredibly some are uber convinced that tricky Ricky bagged a big guy. Not convinced that there is only two monster hunters in this movie. There are definitely three locations and three different 'monster hunts'. Not sure where Biscardi fits in. Not heard his name in connection with the film yet. Well, considering Tricky Ricky and Tom Biscardi's track record with the whole subject?! Either he produces a body pronto, or he should be stoned medieval style as a prolific fraud. Put up or shut up! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Almost at page 150 for this Hoax come people lets make it happen!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 "On the other hand, they better get some pictures released pretty soon, before one of those agencies finds it & it disappears" Ain't that the truth! Being in law enforcement I can tell you no one in LE cares. With the enormous amount of real crime to fight and cuts to staffing at nearly every LE agency in the country the last thing on any LE agency mind is to track down this story in hopes of confiscating a Body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm not *uber convinced*. It's simple a matter of believing (or not) Musky's observations. I don't think it's at all obvious he lied (shill if you will). Those who think he did so, are using the *ad hominem* argument to dismiss his account. One's position on this whole thing comes down to either accepting what he says as true or false (or witholding judgment). Only other possibility is that he was hoaxed into viewing a mock up...highly unlikely, but possible. The facts of the matter says he lied its pretty clear t0 99% of us he lied Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) It's interesting that despite the film title changing, the description remains the same. There is very good reason for this. Yes MarkGlascow there is a good reason for this. (they do not need to) Take a look at the poster: A picture says a thousand words. Edited February 11, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I say the body of BF gets taken to Area 51 and Ricky's off the hook...................Who's with me on this? Come on Ricky I ma giving you an out for free. Then we can go drink some kool aide together.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Yes MarkGlascow there is a good reason for this. (they do not need to) Take a look at the poster: A picture says a thousand words. What does it say to you V. Ill I see is a poster saying someone has a gun and is hunting BF in hopes of finding one and shooting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 It's only lasting because they smartened up compared to last time. No one from the outside was getting in. Kulls got in last time because he was hired by Biscardi as a consultant, but he didn't realize that Kulls was investigating him at the same time. It gave him an opportunity to see it from the inside. Had they not invited Kulls to view it, it probably would have gone on longer than it did. Everyone involved has been involved with Dyer or Biscardi for years. The tent video is well done, but as many said it's two seconds long, and the screen removes the ability to see fine detail. It's a high quality blur, because it doesn't allow extreme closeup, even with the 720p version. Other than that, you have hearsay as the only thing that backs up their story. I fully respect those that want to take a risk and believe. I would never put my trust in hearsay alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 http://www.notanothe...ooting-bigfoot/ "Film poster design for ‘Shooting bigfoot’. A documentary film following two men who are obsessed with finding bigfoot." Two men??? ...please Lord, don't let the other one be you know who. The film poster does not say two men obsessed with finding bigfoot. BTW, who do you mean by you know who? If you mean MM, man, I would rather watch MM all day than RD! If you mean Biscotti, then yeah. Please. RD is enough. It's interesting that despite the film title changing, the description remains the same. There is very good reason for this. Noticed the description didn't change. There's a camera guy in the poster too. 'shooting' just saying Are we still in here talking about this??? lol!! I am afraid C. Noel's reputation will go up in flames for backing this fiasco Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts