Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Ronn1 - I never said I asked her questions about the film. Why should she know details about that? I don't care if she does - unless she can verify it will be included at the festival. She can absolutely verify if it is included - but ONLY after the list has been announced... Just trying to clear up the misinformation about whether this film has been announced as being shown at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival.. It has not - and those reports are wrong.
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) To know all the details on the film itself? That's an assumption isn't it? Minnow has been keeping all this hush hush..do you think they would allow someone on the staff to provide a STANGER making a cold call information confirming that a BF was or was not shot? HMMM... I didn't state she knew ALL the details on the film itself, but certainly she would know the titles of the films to be in the festival correct? Any other questions I asked melissa, I was just asking if SHE could confirm through any source....not specifically through the Press lady. Edited February 12, 2013 by simplyskyla
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Any word on if the locked RD thread will re-open? Well, this is the *de-facto* Dyer thread now. I suggest we WATCH what we say from here out...no personal attacks. The admin has been generous enough to cut us some slack and continue here...at least FOR NOW!
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) The new title is on the Tribecca festival site. Ok...... But it's not on the list of films that will be at the festival, because that hasn't been released as of yet. ( who knows, it could go back to Men of Monsters by then, just sayin! ) Edited February 12, 2013 by simplyskyla
Cisco Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 The new title is on the Tribecca festival site. Violet, Tribeca has not released the schedule of films yet. I think what you're seeing is that "Shooting Bigfoot" was the applicant, and possible recipient, of a Tribeca grant. Receiving the grant does NOT give you automatic entry into the film festival. Now, that being said, I do think that it's very likely the film will be showed at Tribeca because of Minnow films and Morgan Mathews. Not because of Dyer or a possible dead Bigfoot. In short, just because the film is being shown there, it does not validate the story. A few days ago, I checked the film schedule for SXS in Austin and it was not listed there, under both titles.
Guest VioletX Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 ^ I just emailed to find out more, using the current title... could not get through on the phone at this time, oops , probabaly it was lunch time. RD spoke of getting, or expecting to get some tickets to the festival, so whatever that means to you guys...
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) Ronn1 - I never said I asked her questions about the film. Why should she know details about that? I don't care if she does - unless she can verify it will be included at the festival. She can absolutely verify if it is included - but ONLY after the list has been announced... Just trying to clear up the misinformation about whether this film has been announced as being shown at the 2013 Tribeca Film Festival.. It has not - and those reports are wrong. Oh, and for grins (due to a biscardi comment) I asked her if she knew anything about a body of a dead bigfoot that would be unveiled during the premier of one of the Documentaries.. She said, "a what?" And, we both laughed Sorry..I was simply interpreting what you said was to add credence to the notion that a Body was not involved in any way. You were simply asking if it was to be displayed in some fashion at that time. Edited February 12, 2013 by ronn1
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 In response to people remarking that he didn't take notes, Musky said that when he got back in the car after seeing the body, he did take notes. He did not say whether he was blindfolded when he was taking the notes, or after taking the notes, or when he was driven to the facility, or when he was in the coffee shop. I believe this was on the RD show where he called in. On the other hand, in response to the Meldrum dustup, he said Meldrum would never have agreed to the security measures, like the blindfold and 4 hour drive. (honestly, who would?) This was in 'official statement by musky allen.' Belmar, thanks. I wish somebody would ask him about that because it doesn't make much sense. I can't specifically recall if they said he was definitely blindfolded at any time, but it certainly was implied.
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 More likely..he may have been blindfolded at *critical* times...and not others. They may also have covered the windows...etc. I wouldn't place too effort in this area as far as debunking Musky.
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 I think we can bet the farm he was never blindfolded at any time, but it's a very good idea to ask.
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 ^ I just emailed to find out more, using the current title... could not get through on the phone at this time, oops , probabaly it was lunch time. RD spoke of getting, or expecting to get some tickets to the festival, so whatever that means to you guys... Minnow Films received a grant from Tribeca back in 2011, I believe. If this film is going to be shown - it won't even be announced for another couple weeks... I can't imagine the fine folks at the Festival would be none too pleased if someone associated with a film that was selected was out discussing it. Would Minnow Films have told Dyer ----- I highly doubt it. They may have told him they had submitted - but who has been selected has not been made public. I hope all the hype before the announcement doesn't get the film booted - to be honest.
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) I think we can bet the farm he was never blindfolded at any time, but it's a very good idea to ask. Establishing that he was indeed blindfolded or prevented in some manner from determining where he was going, would LEND CREDENCE to the notion that he was NOT A SHILL. In fact ANYTHING supporting the fact that he actually made a trip at all, is indicative of his being a true witness and not a shill. Edited February 12, 2013 by ronn1
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) How would we establish that he was blindfolded? I'm not taking his word for it. Edited February 12, 2013 by Belmar
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 You mean a free trip to vegas makes him credible? I think not
Guest Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 (edited) If he was a shill there wouldn't be a trip at all. Why would he have to? Just purchase plane tickets. But we KNOW he made a trip...he's standing next to Dyer at the hotel. How would we establish that he was blindfolded? I'm not taking his word for it. Agree, was just saying. same goes with simply making a trip to the facility. Shill doesn't need to do that. Edited February 12, 2013 by ronn1
Recommended Posts