Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Fascinating, ronn1......... Hard to argue with what RD is saying! Here's the thing: Sometimes it takes a maker of war to become a maker of peace. Sometimes you have to visit the dark side -- the one we all have -- to become the best possible (the most knowledgeable supporter of!) the "light side". He's doing a HECK of a job pulling this off..that's for sure. I'll say it until he shut's my mouth with the * BIG university* confirming....this is a haox pure and simple. Has all the hallmarks of one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Umm ... ?? What evidence is there to support his claim that he shot and killed a BF? Just because RD and CN say so? The only evidence so far is that he was at that location with the film crew. I don't consider the tent video evidence because I think it's fake, but LET'S SAY it does show a real BF chomping on some ribs ... there is no evidence that he killed it and has it somewhere in Vegas. No one has proven it's a hoax but many here have punched HUGE holes in his story. I'm not going to seriously consider military helicopters, stealth freezer truck transport, 9-page NDAs, as covers for those holes. The tent video and film documentary are supporting evidence but not proof. The details of Dyer's past and possible cover-ups involving NDA's and stealth trucks moving in the night,lol, are speculation for now. Edited January 31, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 So what proof is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotafeeling Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I just have to chime in - after many days and nights spent reading through this voluminous thread, Thank You Violet and Jackie! I love your optimism and the balance you bring to this topic. I hope Dyer is being truthful, but won't be surprised or terribly disappointed if he isn't. If I were literally straddling a fence, I think I'd be close to toppling onto the "it really happened!" side. Until we find out the resolution to this whole entertaining story, I'll keep reading and enjoying the thoughtful posts from all sides. And I know someone has asked this, and perhaps it's been answered - but how do we know that this oddly named "Musky Allen" is not a figment of someone's imagination? A photo, a facebook page, etc mean nothing, really. All can be make-believe. And anyway, what a truly awful nickname! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 When someone says extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, there is an implied "... for me to believe it." at the end. That's why we haven't been reading Ketchum's study in all the scientific journals. Then I think that phrase should be added to the end of the statement every time. Because it makes it clearer that this is a personal demand -- something *I* (the speaker) want, but not necessarily something that's valid for all people, for all time. It's not valid for me, for example. So I marvel a little at the boldness of the statement, its grand sweep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. I'll settle with just ordinary proof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 The tent video and film documentary are supporting evidence but not proof. The details of Dyer's past and possible cover-ups involving NDA's and stealth trucks moving in the night,lol, are speculation for now. I disagree that the video and documentary are supporting evidence. Remember Monster Quest and the Dogman hoax. They knew it was a hoax and still aired it for publicity and ratings. Just because someone's making a documentary doesn't make it legit. There are many unanswered questions and tons of speculation and as having a journalism degree, I have a natural curiosity for unanswered questions. I also know that a source's background is important. RD is a known hoaxer and he gloats about it. He has a higher requirement (yes required) for scrutiny because of his past actions. Innocent until proven guilty when you've already been guilty guarantees a higher level of doubt than if anyone else was making the claim. And knowing how film technology is today, even if the documentary shows a kill and body, I won't believe until it's actually studied by credentialed and well known scientists. Money is too persuasive, especially in this economy. Remember that Dyer's partner was a cop which led credibility to the Georgia attempt. Titles don't lead to credibility in stories like this anymore. History is the precedent in this case, and the only thing that's keeping myself even slightly interested in this story anymore is CN's involvement. As to RD's claim that you can't profit off a hoax... his entire career right now is based off his previous hoax. Internet traffic drives revenue and he's gotten plenty. We're all being Manti Te'oed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I just have to chime in - after many days and nights spent reading through this voluminous thread, Thank You Violet and Jackie! I love your optimism and the balance you bring to this topic. I hope Dyer is being truthful, but won't be surprised or terribly disappointed if he isn't. If I were literally straddling a fence, I think I'd be close to toppling onto the "it really happened!" side. Until we find out the resolution to this whole entertaining story, I'll keep reading and enjoying the thoughtful posts from all sides. And I know someone has asked this, and perhaps it's been answered - but how do we know that this oddly named "Musky Allen" is not a figment of someone's imagination? A photo, a facebook page, etc mean nothing, really. All can be make-believe. And anyway, what a truly awful nickname! lol, I hope his name is not an indication of his personal Hygiene! Yes, Mr Allen, please provide to the BFF your resume a.s.a.p. I do believe he is a real flesh and blood person, I would just like to know more, I guess I could find out with my limited digging skills. Thanks for your encouragement, Jacki and Jen Jen and I are the only ones beside you and now Leaf Talker who are open to Dyers's story.Hopefully I am not missing some, I know there are some who are skeptical but would. "happily eat crow" if there was indeed a body. Your post made me laugh, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 ....although Dyer will never be a Saint in the Bf community, he is not all dark. Perhaps Dyers walk through the dark side and the hatred that befell him as result was enough to motivate him and accelerate his drive and tracking skills. Yeah, that's what I think, too. I also think that people haven't been listening to him very closely, like you have. Maybe it will turn out that, all along, he has said things that have merit; but many of us have been so impatient, so sure of our judgments, that we've dismissed things we shouldn't have. I think we all dismiss each other too quickly much of the time...... There is more to all of us than we might ever think, as I've heard said..... I'm the worst offender. I'll read something on this board and say, "WHAT?!?!?!?" and then a few posts later, I'll read a post from the same poster and say, "Yeah, that sounds right!" So I'm learning a lot from all of you, and from this particular exercise, especially! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gotafeeling Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Perhaps we should start a whole new thread exploring whether this Musky person is "real". Are there believers? Knowers? Skoftics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) @ njjohn, I would call it evidence that strengthens Dyers case, if not substantiating evidence. The Tent Video has not been proven a hoax, not proven CGI, no mask found, many have stated that the quality of the make-up and or costume is at hollywood level or beyond. The fact that Dyer was in the woods for 6 days with Minnow films does substantiate that Dyer was on a serious hunt for Bigfoot and is in the film, we have evidence that Dyer has said in the past and on that very mission that he will kill a Bigfoot if he sees one. All of this is supporting evidence in my opinion. Edited January 31, 2013 by VioletX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I'll settle with just ordinary proof! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I know there are some who are skeptical but would. "happily eat crow" if there was indeed a body.[/size] Your post made me laugh, thanks. VioletX, JackiLB, and others. I am one of the skeptics and I appreciate everyone's input here. I think it has been a healthy exercise, well, until we got shut down the other night. But, thankfully the admins, got us back on track. I want to be convinced. I want BF to be real. But what evidence do we have other than a claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 (edited) Found something odd from a commenter on RL's page. Quoted and condensed to get to the good parts. Anyone seen this? "I have seen the extended tent video. It is a hoax and it is not a gut in a suit, but a guy holding a prop bust. The man is out of view to the right as you watch the video and they had to adjust to get him out of frame and the prop in the right spot. They posted it on youtube and then pulled it. I believe this is to demonstrate that people will believe what they wish. You can even inject the truth back in and it will be denied as a sort of reverse hoax. I wouldn’t care about this at all, except perhaps I would like to go on record as one of the unfooled..." "...I’d love for anyone else to speak up, Especially if they saw it. I’m most impressed that the video had plenty of views, but apparent not from anyone else who comments on here. This one puts me in an awkward place and now I know part of how a bigfoot witness must feel. Inside I’m laughing a bit, because I actually do KNOW the truth in this particular case, but also sad for the lost credibility in the community of "tent" believers who were so convinced. Especially FB/FB . I certainly didn’t mean to offend any fellow non-believers." Edited January 31, 2013 by Efrum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeafTalker Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 I disagree that the video and documentary are supporting evidence. Remember Monster Quest and the Dogman hoax. They knew it was a hoax and still aired it for publicity and ratings. Just because someone's making a documentary doesn't make it legit. There are many unanswered questions and tons of speculation and as having a journalism degree, I have a natural curiosity for unanswered questions. I also know that a source's background is important. RD is a known hoaxer and he gloats about it. He has a higher requirement (yes required) for scrutiny because of his past actions. Innocent until proven guilty when you've already been guilty guarantees a higher level of doubt than if anyone else was making the claim. And knowing how film technology is today, even if the documentary shows a kill and body, I won't believe until it's actually studied by credentialed and well known scientists. Money is too persuasive, especially in this economy. Remember that Dyer's partner was a cop which led credibility to the Georgia attempt. Titles don't lead to credibility in stories like this anymore. History is the precedent in this case, and the only thing that's keeping myself even slightly interested in this story anymore is CN's involvement. As to RD's claim that you can't profit off a hoax... his entire career right now is based off his previous hoax. Internet traffic drives revenue and he's gotten plenty. We're all being Manti Te'oed. Hey, NJJohn! Nice to see you! I agree with most of what you said, except in this way: A source's "background" is important, only because we as a culture have decided it should be.... In some ways, it's not really material at all. It's not accepted in a court of law, for example. You're only supposed to look at the evidence for the crime in question; you can't say, "Well, this guy was bad in the PAST, so he must've done this bad thing he's suspected of doing NOW." Judges throw that stuff out. The standards for proof/evidence in journalism are a little different, but I think it's more because there really AREN'T great ways of getting at the truth right away. It takes time. It takes work. It takes thinking. And we're all in a hurry! We don't WANT to take time. We don't WANT to work at anything. So a journalist, if he wants to eat, has to follow certain "protocols". I'm not saying those protocols are bad. I'm just saying that they're not a guarantee of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts