Guest njjohn Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 NDA doesn't cover receipts.. otherwise he couldn't have described anything that he has. He can describe the penis, but he can't show a receipt lol. Only in the world of RD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oonjerah Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Mid-tarsal break. Looks like just a flat foot to me. But when walking, a Bf foot can curl back on itself, slightly. unlike our stiff foot bending only at the toes. No idea how that'd look on a dead body. Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest miller44 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Would he be able to see that just looking at the foot superficially? I would think that a mid-tarcal break would apparant looking at the foot superficially for the simple reason as it is apparant in looking at the tracks superficially (since we know what we're looking for). If break shows up in the tracks I would think the foot that makes the tracks would reflect that + if Musky was making his testimony up I would have certainly expected him to say "yes" to the break, but instead he said no and sounded genuinely surprised that the break wasn't there when he examined the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 According to Musky..it's a facility that supports all aspects of storage and inspection of the body. It has to be something substantial...I'm banking on a University now. Its not at UNLV i have friends there...its not at any university they dont have a body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 One thing here appears inevitable>>>>we will soon have an answer won't we? All this talk and swager will soon be reduced to a simple fact>>Dyer is right or he is wrong. I say he has a body..others (almost everyone) here say this is a hoax. I'm looking forward to a resolution soon...it's comming. Carry on..... hes Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I would think that a mid-tarcal break would apparant looking at the foot superficially for the simple reason as it is apparant in looking at the tracks superficially (since we know what we're looking for). If break shows up in the tracks I would think the foot that makes the tracks would reflect that + if Musky was making his testimony up I would have certainly expected him to say "yes" to the break, but instead he said no and sounded genuinely surprised that the break wasn't there when he examined the foot. pretty hard to examine a foor without touching it...cuz there is no body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawk-o Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Breaking News!! Christopher Noel says Dyer did shoot and kill a Bigfoot and has the body! Dyer responds to Bigfoot Tonight Radio Show http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com/2013/02/breaking-news-christopher-noel-says.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 11, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hah, of course, that's Dyers site. NOT Shawn Evidence's, what did you think he was gonna say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawk-o Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Edited... this was allready discussed. Sorry. Edited February 11, 2013 by Hawk-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 FWIW, Dyer reads both his e-mail to Meldrum from Sept. 13th and Meldrums response from last week aloud on his last show: 0:55:11 until 0:59:57 time mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Ontario..did you once believe? I think you did.. anyway.... about credible evidence...Let me be clear>> There is NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE at the moment. I'm taking Musky and Dyer at their word. I believe what they are NOW SAYING IS TRUE. Fact1 RD serial hoaxer Fact2 RD said he could/would fool BF Community again Fact3 nobody has ever heard of MA Fact 4 MA lied about contacting Meldrum Fact 5 MA lied about contacting MM Fact 6 MA lied about relationship with RD so please give me your reasoning on why you as a proclaimed disbelieved now believe in these twos claims to have a dead BF 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 FWIW, Dyer reads both his e-mail to Meldrum from Sept. 13th and Meldrums response from last week aloud on his last show: 0:55:11 until 0:59:57 time mark. Again just Dyers word...the word of contradicting liar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest miller44 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 pretty hard to examine a foor without touching it...cuz there is no body I'm saying Musky sounded entirely genuine in what he was saying. Are you saying that Musky did not sound genuine in what he was saying, or are you just saying "there is no body" because you've judged some of the other particulars in this story are untrustworthy? BTW I freely admit that the many other particulars of the story are untrustworthy; I would be a fool to try and agrue otherwise. But in my opinion the tent video and Musky's interview (and some other tid bits) stand squarely in the face of those untrustworthy elements. I hope that you can see that my position is not entirely one-sided, and all things considered I am not sure how anyone's opinion of this situation (either for or against) could be one-sided unless they had blinders on. At present there is considerable reason to question, yet still there is also some reason to believe. To be polarized at this point and time seems unwarranted to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm saying Musky sounded entirely genuine in what he was saying. Are you saying that Musky did not sound genuine in what he was saying, or are you just saying "there is no body" because you've judged some of the other particulars in this story are untrustworthy? BTW I freely admit that the many other particulars of the story are untrustworthy; I would be a fool to try and agrue otherwise. But in my opinion the tent video and Musky's interview (and some other tid bits) stand squarely in the face of those untrustworthy elements. I hope that you can see that my position is not entirely one-sided, and all things considered I am not sure how anyone's opinion of this situation (either for or against) could be one-sided unless they had blinders on. At present there is considerable reason to question, yet still there is also some reason to believe. To be polarized at this point and time seems unwarranted to me. Good post Miller. I don't have blinders on. I am just looking at all the facts surrounding the supposed event. All the fact point clearly to this being an elaborate hoax. RD is at the center of this that is enough to cast very serious doubt. He has a.very sorid history. Now add in MA already being fought in several lies and I have to conclude to me what is the obvious. HOAX I would love to be wrong just like most on here I would.be very happy to have this species discovered. It would be vindication for a lot of researchers who have put a lot of their own time and effort into it. But we must be very cautious to not let our wanting the discovery get in the way of clear unbiased evaluation of the facts. All we have is the word RD and MA. And for me that just not enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Chris Noel said, "To me, it's 100% obvious that the tent video is authentic. I don't understand why people have such a tough time accepting that. It's clearly a Sasquatch to me, and to others...and so if it weren't for that, I wouldn't have gone down the road to even try to find the source of information about the truth of this claim. But knowing Rick Dyer took that video, I was already halfway there, knowing that that was a real Sassquatch. I didn't know if he'd shot it yet but then, it just takes a little open mindedness and a little digging. Anyone can find stuff out if they're willing to look for it......" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts