Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Couple pages back...i had the same therory Cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 shill /ʃɪl/ Show Spelled [shil] Show IPA Slang. noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty. verb (used without object) 3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino. verb (used with object) 4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 FromWikipedia: A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. "Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization Does that sound like anyone we know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Good point. Another good point! No it was £250,000.00 which is $395,000.00. and the British Film Institute would not give that amount of grant to film makers for them to spend it on a latex monkey mask for a silly hoax movie. That just would NOT happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The law applies equally to public or private land. 1. If he shot it on private land, the land owner owns the body. 2. If he shot it on public land, the State of Texas owns the body. In addition, he is also liable for hunting without a license which is punishable by law. This is huge, Cisco. Good thinking! He's going to be forced to admit to a hoax. It's bound to happen eventually, but the sooner the better! I wonder what excuse he will find for this one. It was shot on land that is withing a couple of miles from the Home Depot and that belongs to one of his 7 associates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 This is one thing that really bugs me about the whole bigfoot thing...the law debate. Does law apply to something that doesn't exist? Surely if you shoot something unknown to science then it's the same as simply shooting nothing? Because it was never there to begin with right? Come on IF he did shoot something, bagged it up and took it with him then it's his....I say this because how can any land owner/state say he shot something that is unknown to science on their land when their is no documented proof that this thing excicted on said land...surely it would be up to them to prove this thing was on their land? If he said he shot it in a certain place he could just change that story and say he shot it in his back yard. How could they prove otherwise without bringing Grissom in lol Are you guys catching what I'm throwing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Good point. Another good point! Did they stay another 4 days? Where does it say that? FromWikipedia: A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that he has a close relationship with that person or organization. "Shill" typically refers to someone who purposely gives onlookers the impression that he is an enthusiastic independent customer of a seller (or marketer of ideas) for whom he is secretly working. The person or group who hires the shill is using crowd psychology, to encourage other onlookers or audience members to purchase the goods or services (or accept the ideas being marketed). Shills are often employed by professional marketing campaigns. "Plant" and "stooge" more commonly refer to any person who is secretly in league with another person or organization while pretending to be neutral or actually a part of the organization he is planted in, such as a magician's audience, a political party, or an intelligence organization Ok thanks. No I'm not convinced Musky is a SHILL. I think he is another attention seeker who wants to be the one to prove that Rick Dyer has produced another hoax. I think he's i) really worried that he may be wrong and ii) overwhelmed by the fact that he might actually be taken to see a real bigfoot. I dont think there's anything more to this. Edited January 29, 2013 by JackiLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkGlasgow Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 No it was £250,000.00 which is $395,000.00. and the British Film Institute would not give that amount of grant to film makers for them to spend it on a latex monkey mask for a silly hoax movie. That just would NOT happen. The money wouldn't have been spent on a mask. The money was spent sending a full production crew to Texas, North East India and Sumatra, Indonesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 This is one thing that really bugs me about the whole bigfoot thing...the law debate. Does law apply to something that doesn't exist? Surely if you shoot something unknown to science then it's the same as simply shooting nothing? Because it was never there to begin with right? Come on IF he did shoot something, bagged it up and took it with him then it's his....I say this because how can any land owner/state say he shot something that is unknown to science on their land when their is no documented proof that this thing excicted on said land...surely it would be up to them to prove this thing was on their land? If he said he shot it in a certain place he could just change that story and say he shot it in his back yard. How could they prove otherwise without bringing Grissom in lol Are you guys catching what I'm throwing? Yes its a brilliant hypothesis Benboy23! Perhaps RIck Dyer wont be arrested afterall but will be sectioned instead lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 @benboy, I'm catching. You're right. Poaching happens and some do get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 The money wouldn't have been spent on a mask. The money was spent sending a full production crew to Texas, North East India and Sumatra, Indonesia. Exactly MarkGlasgow funds spent on worthwhile constructive things rather than hoax paraphernalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 (edited) Did they stay another 4 days? Where does it say that? Ok thanks. No I'm not convinced Musky is a SHILL. I think he is another attention seeker who wants to be the one to prove that Rick Dyer has produced another hoax. I think he's i) really worried that he may be wrong and ii) overwhelmed by the fact that he might actually be taken to see a real bigfoot. I dont think there's anything more to this. If he goes, and it looks like he will, like I said he WILL report a body. It's pretty obvious isn't it? Dyer isn't going to go through a *Dog and Poney* show and fail to have a positive report. UNLESS>>>> I pointed out the other scenarios already. Edited January 29, 2013 by ronn1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 My opinion, knowing Dyers history, that his part in this movie is to show the hoaxing side of the bigfoot community and how far hoaxers will go to fool the true believers, this is all part of the wonderful world we know as bigfootery. Squatch on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 29, 2013 Share Posted January 29, 2013 Exactly MarkGlasgow funds spent on worthwhile constructive things rather than hoax paraphernalia. so the film company wouldn't spend money on a mask, but they would spend money buying Dyer a brand new SUV? That don't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts