Guest miller44 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The only thing he has had to show since he began seriously tracking bigfoot in 2009 ( so he says ) is this............... Uummm, I don't mean to be contrary, but how about the tent video? Anyone want to go crow hunting with me in Oregon?? No thanks, according to the book it's bad luck to kill a mockingbird. I'm keeping my trigger fingers crossed, no bad luck please. I would like a link to where he said he was defending the camera man...it's not a deal breaker for me..but would like to verify that. I don't doubt he said something along those lines. I'm sure it's BS, but if he said it RD was probably trying to justify his actions to the large amounts of people calling him a ruthless killer and murderer and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 NJ... I would like a link to where he said he was defending the camera man...it's not a deal breaker for me..but would like to verify that. Thanks... I think many here would gladly provide you a link Ronn, sadly Dyer REMOVED the videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Ronn - i'd gladly post a link if he didn't delete his old videos and radio shows that show all his contradictions. It's been said plenty of times in the forums before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Crows and mocking birds are birds of a different feather my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest miller44 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Crows and mocking birds are birds of a different feather my friend. lol, true but sometimes it's hard to tell one from the other... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) ^ We're talking birds and you post a picture of a bigfoot!! lol what gives dude? Edited February 16, 2013 by AaronD to remove reposted image and quote of post directly above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest miller44 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) The shortest line is not always straight my friend This pic was from a case where a guy thought his trail cam had taken a picture of a BF, but it turned out to be a bird in flight. Edited February 16, 2013 by miller44 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Those are just big hands... wings are fake. The beak is a camera artifact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Didn't fb/fb confirm that on conical head, mid-tarsal break and leg rise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) The shortest line is not always straight my friend http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/35363-rick-dyer-again/page__st__5340#entry703125 This pic was from a case where a guy thought his trail cam had taken a picture of a BF, but it turned out to be a bird in flight. I'm well aware of the theory proposed by the guy who analyzed the photo, however a bush wouldn't be in front of a bird in flight, when the "bird" is supposedly closer to the camera than it appears (bush is in between the "wings") furthermore birds do not turn their heads like that while in flight. So there you have it, bird theory debunked.Makes as much sense as the Provo canyon bigfoot really being a turkey spreading its tail feathers. Edited February 16, 2013 by AaronD to remove reposted image Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I also blame Rick Dyer for photoshopping that CNN logo in the lower right corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I'm well aware of the theory proposed by the guy who analyzed the photo, however a bush wouldn't be in front of a bird in flight, when the "bird" is supposedly closer to the camera than it appears (bush is in between the "wings") furthermore birds do not turn their heads like that while in flight. So there you have it, bird theory debunked. Makes as much sense as the Provo canyon bigfoot really being a turkey spreading its tail feathers. There were more pictures that showed the bird. It was a typical cherry picked photo to make you think it was something its not. I do believe it was debunked on Monster Quest, but don't quote me on that.I'm sure there's a thread on it in the film/photo section of this forum. Edited February 16, 2013 by squatting squatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest miller44 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I'm well aware of the theory proposed by the guy who analyzed the photo, however a bush wouldn't be in front of a bird in flight, when the "bird" is supposedly closer to the camera than it appears (bush is in between the "wings") furthermore birds do not turn their heads like that while in flight. So there you have it, bird theory debunked. Fair enough, I was just tryin to make a joke, sparkling wordplay, an attempt at levity, etc. I didn't mean to spark an OT debate on an OT photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I wonder if Derek Randles will cry like Musky did. I think I would. Hey Fellas!! Do you have the time? tick...tock....tick.....tock....tick....tock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 btw..I am keeping out of the same arguments that keep going round in circles with this story. If I start arguing once again that this story isnt a hoax, I will start to get sarcastic and bad tempered because of the backlash I will receive and I dont want to go down that route again. I could however go back through this thread and copy and paste some of the numerous plausible theories written by some of us against these same repetitive sceptic arguments, but I just refuse to have to spend some of my day doing this - its sunny outside today too! Non believers - please wait for Derek Randles statement and new evidence eh? I am for one am worn down with the same ole same ole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts