Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If Rick Dyer killed a Bigfoot, it would make no difference who he was associated with at the time, he would want immediate possession of the body. It could be the legal battle of the century and it could not be kept secret. We live in an age where it is impossible to conceal anything, much less a Bigfoot. I would wager that even homeless people, at least a few, have cell phones with cameras and someone gets footage of something. If the working tittle of the movie is a play on the title of Steinbeck's book, "Of Mice and Men" that might be a clue. I don't know if RD could be Lenie, neither are bright, but Lennie was not bad, per say, even though he did kill the girl. "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men/ gang aft aglay" Schemes and hoax are synonymous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I just listened to it again and the voice is not RD. His story has too many odd details that are told without hesitation. The story about his experience in Seville, within the dates specified, are not anything RD could have made up by himself. It requires having been there to describe the surroundings. The caller was too familiar with the area he was describing. That does not mean the story is true but it's obvious the caller was basing his story on a prior personal experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Here is my take. my opinion. If RD had killed BF, it would have already been front page CNN, Fox all the news and he would be in the middle of all the glory! But I dont believe he has killed one, and he is playing the moment as long as he can! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 It's totally not true. The main reason why is because Minnow Films would have come out and said it's true if they did indeed have the footage. They absolutely don't want to mislead anybody because they have a grant and so they have a moral obligation to be forthright and tell potential viewers the entire plot and contents of their movie prior to it's release. Of course I'm totally kidding, I just wanted to see if that sounded any better from the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) You know what was my biggest red flag with Ed Smith's claims? Absolutely zero rumors. Smith said there was almost up to 50 people involved with the capture and after a few days when no one was hearing nothing except what came out of Smith's mouth did I start wondering if this "group" ever existed, because if they did it was amazing they all could keep their traps shut. Its the same story here, all we hear is the lies from Dyer. Edited January 25, 2013 by Ronnie Bass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Some of these hoaxers will go to great lengths to make it look like they are doing research. They seem to be on some kind of crazy hunt for attention Edited January 25, 2013 by OntarioSquatch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JenJen of Oldstones Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Jen Jen - you said that you thought the 'camper' vid was authentic. Do you also believe that Dyer blew out a bigfoots brains whilst in his underpants whilst being filmed by a full documentary film crew? Well, I believe he shot the Bigfoot while he was in his underwear, but I'm thinking he did it from inside the tent--that he shot it through the mesh screen. I don't think he would have been able to shoot the BF otherwise, because unzipping his tent and scrambling out would have given the BF time to get out of there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Harry Man Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I thought the re-creation showed him outside his tent - with the bigfoot in his gun sight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I'm almost positive that he has said he came out of the tent before he shot it. Also, as Melissa said the drawing shows him out of the tent. The fact that the noise of the zipper did not scare it away is one of the things I have always thought was a red flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JenJen of Oldstones Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 ^^That doesn't mean he's telling the truth. He says he came out of the tent and someone drew a picture of him outside of his tent, but so? It would have been safer for him to stay in the tent. Safer and less scary. Maybe he did come out of the tent to shoot the Bigfoot, but I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Oh heck, I don't think he is telling the truth about any of it. But if he shot from the tent and the artist rendition shows him outside the tent and taking aim (which I am sure it does) then that is a huge problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 What if the zipper was not zipped,lol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JenJen of Oldstones Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Why is it a huge problem if the artist depicted him standing outside the tent? I'm not trying to be argumentative at all--I can tell that I must be missing some key point and I'm hoping you'll educate me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 (edited) Because the artist depiction is supposed to be an accurate representation of what happened. Otherwise, why would he do it. I have been scouring the internet looking for that artwork - and can't find it. But, every blog site I have been on all discuss Dyer getting out of the tent - then making the shot. I know you're not trying to be argumentative It's all good. Edited to add: When a person makes a statement about where they were, and how the situation went down - those are things they should know - and should not be changing later. If you see changes in the story like that - that spells problems. Just something to look for when evaluating a statement. Edited January 25, 2013 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts