Guest VioletX Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I really have not been following Musky as deeply as you have NJJOHN, I think his real name and maybe posting through whatever expedition group may be the confusion here. IMO he does not know much about the preservation of the body and may be incorrect in his assumptions, not sure. I would reccomend that you write to him and he may have a helpful answer. Could be that some of this is a case of things being lost in transalation. It is neither here nor there for me, and I am looking forward to other upcoming revelations; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 But he never contacted him in 2009 either... That's the point. He never contacted him. For Vegas or in 2009. He gave two different descriptions for the kill shot bullet wound, neck and mouth. He lied about Money Maker suing him and taking down his website. He made the comments here about the preservation techniques and now says differently. How many miscommunications equal a fabrication to you? yes..I would like Musky to address the Moneymaker law suit. I think he was threatned with a suit..still would like Musky to clarify that issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 ok Ronn... you saw Musky's descriptions of the preservation techniques. And he's since changed some after I called him on it. So should his genuine nature be trusted then? Or was he mistaken because it proves the whole thing false, but when it supports the story, he's genuine? Because by his own statements, the body would have decomposed on the visible levels. But of course that's not credible enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) I don't need to take anything up with him. You implied that Gimlin might have doubted the authenticity of the video, which is not the case. Yes, sometimes people say things which are different than what their real feelings are, for semantic reasons. You can see plenty of that in this and other threads here at the BFF. I did no such thing. Please feel free to read again what I actually wrote if you are confused. I never ever mentioned Bob Gimlin doubted the authenticity of any video. I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless you mean he doubted the authenticity of the event in 1967, perhaps? In which case, all I can say is that he did say he could have been hoaxed. If he's told you that he didn't think he could have been the victim of a hoax and he lied to Chris Packham then I'm not privvy to that information. I'm only going off what he said in the interview. Thanks. lee Edited February 11, 2013 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hey, Jacki!!!!!!!!! you're BAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!!!!! WELCOME!!!!!!!! and what a fantastic "I'm back" post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I tried to start a passenger list for the Vegas Plane on page 155, but nobody bit. So I want to be on your train, fer shur!!!! LT Oh sorry Leaf - I was staying at a *cough* Buddhist Treat and didnt see that because of all that yoga I was doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 ^^^^^^^ Wish you guys would take this stuff to the appropriate thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flycatch Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Ok, just for fun, how about we do a bit of armchair forensics. So first, i am looking for someone to confirm that Rick himself made the claim that the Bigfoot was 8foot 9 inches tall, and 68? lbs? (I am going off memory here, but it struck home because one of the early classic signs of lying, is producing too much detail). Anyway, assuming I am remembering somewhat correctly: so we go to post # 4308, which has the link to a facebook page, with a photo of this bigfoot, with a clipboard set up against the body. So at last, we can do a bit of comparative inquiry. So on my computer screen, the clipboard measures 3.0 cm across. And compare that to the one in my office, which is 21 cm across. so that math is easy, each cm on my screen equates to 7 cm in real life. Now we go to the body, It measures 20 cm from head to where the photo ends, which looks to be about the knee of said animal. That means that the portion of the body in view is 20 X 7 cm, or 140 cm long. about 4 foot 8 inches. That means from the knee down this thing has to be 4 feet . you as a human, you have maybe 2 foot of length below the knee. So that meansthis things knees would hit you asbout mid torso! but the rest of the body is portioned about the same as a human. Has anyone reported that bigfoot has lower legs that are stilt like? No one said that was Dyers body. Edited February 11, 2013 by Art1972 to remove personal attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Train? Try an all expense paid vacation to Vegas! thats what Rick said on his blog show last night! Don't tell me you seriously believe that bs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 ^^^^^^^ Wish you guys would take this stuff to the appropriate thread. ronn1 - apologies, yes you are right. The Gimlin thing did relate to this post in a round about way, but it is now totally off topic. Best regards, Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Page 158 - Still no body? @njjohn - I find the habituator link very bizarre. Agree the actions of the BF are in complete contrast with the 'special abilities' attributed to our local, friendly big guy. Wouldn't recommend anyone going to the SXSW festival to see the movie. Will be a wasted journey as it's not being shown there. Loving your CAPS ronn1. Really emphasises your rather odd and certainly suspect interest in this. Your situation makes no sense to me at all. This scenario should be a skeptics dream. Anyone putting faith in Chris Noel's backing of this story should check out Robert Lindsay's latest blog. Interesting stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Hi flycatch......I saw you posted in RD's chatroom most of of BFF seemed to be coming around to believing it was not a hoax. What are there, 5 of you? Oh pardon me, 6 including you? This is curious to me - because the "email" issue was never a Dyer comment - it was Musky.. So, if I am reading your comment right - Dyer is upset about emails he had with Meldrum? Did he forget about the huge, glaring, Mack truck sized holes in Musky's comments about his discussions with Meldrum? I know Musky is now telling people - he was actually talking about a conversation he had with Dr. Meldrum from 2009 - but I'm not stupid.. LOL. Musky blew this himself. I just don't think he expected Dr. Meldrum to speak up. He rarely does in defense of himself. Hey Melissa. What's a girl like you, doing in a place like this? ( rd thread) ahaha jk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 ok Ronn... you saw Musky's descriptions of the preservation techniques. And he's since changed some after I called him on it. So should his genuine nature be trusted then? Or was he mistaken because it proves the whole thing false, but when it supports the story, he's genuine? Because by his own statements, the body would have decomposed on the visible levels. But of course that's not credible enough. Maybe he was wrong, good thing he is not a mortician,lol, but it does not make him a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Since when do 6 members constitute 'most of the bff'??? Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 VioletX, Are you Pink? Pt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohiobill Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 kbhunter - Any more word from your sources? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts