Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 @ adam, it defies logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 My position is based on what I have seen and heard. We're all entitled to our opinions. The resolution is on the horizon. I'm looking forward to it. Of course you are and I respect that But you have continually said your belief is based on the statements made by MA. How do you reconcile the lies he has told @ adam, it defies logic. indeed!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 I wonder if that's Cisco? Not me but I did send the guy a message through Youtube to see when he's going out there again. I may join him if we can schedule it. You can see some of the exact same things, in his video, that I photographed, including the tent. Which, by the way, looks like the tent in RD's video. The scat is from a horse or a cow, not anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Cisco!! Was just missing you, glad you returned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Of course you are and I respect that But you have continually said your belief is based on the statements made by MA. How do you reconcile the lies he has told It's not about trying to access whether Musky has told *lies*....much of which is subject to interpretation. The fundamental question is>>> Is Musky a a SHILL? Is he a hired GUN? This theory is simply conjecture and there is NO BASIS for concluding he is one...NONE. I'm only going to say this one more time >>>> I find his account CONVINCING. We'll soon find out who is right and who is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest njjohn Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 hold up.. interpretation? The only one that he's given interpretation on is the Meldrum emails. But again even in 2009 he never emailed him. It doesn't discount that he never trained under Rene' or had Rene's notes, or the lawsuit. Everything has been lies. So of course he sounds convincing, because he's good at it. And you can say I'm shooting the messenger, but check the old thread. I was calling out Musky on his background before he had the visit, interview or lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Cisco!! Was just missing you, glad you returned. I just have not had the time, recently, to keep up with RD's adventures. Glad to see that we're still where we were a couple of weeks ago. I hate it when I miss something big and have to catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Your entitled to your opinion. Your not looking at all the facts just the ones the FIT into your beliefs We all know that the way to the TRUTH is to discard all of the facts that do not fit your narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DantheMan Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 The fundamental question is>>> Is Musky a a SHILL? Is he a hired GUN? This theory is simply conjecture and there is NO BASIS for concluding he is one...NONE. I'm only going to say this one more time >>>> I find his account CONVINCING. We'll soon find out who is right and who is wrong. I disagree, there is every basis for Musky being a shill, the fact that he was convincing does not make the basis of which he could be a shill any more or less probable. The lies and cover ups are basis for being a shill, just like Dyers shill in the 2008 freezer hoax, in that case his brother in law was the shill, the lies we're about who he was and what his profession and credentials were, and similar to this story, he was brought in by Dyer himself to confirm the body. Hmmmm where have I seen this pattern recently? Musky is unknown, he and his reputation were created, shortly after this alleged incident took place, his past "research" has not been verified, he lied about contacting Meldrum for this subject, was caught in that lie and created a back story to cover his tracks. It's pretty simple really. All things considered, even his convincing interview, he absolutely COULD be a Dyer Shill. I will say it once again, pathological liars always sound convincing!! Alas, It matters not, for soon we all shall know the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 So Dyer was fortunate enough to find the IDEAL SHILL...a pathological liar. How convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Just found this investigative video posted. Don't know who it is or if they are from this forum, but it's intersting. Good Find! Gun shots, SUV's, Film Crews, weird scat. hmmm.. RD seems to have deleted his YouTube vids. Weird Well I would do the same if there were people out there misinterpreting everything I said! I don't think you can compare Derek Randles to Musky Allen. C'mon now. Well, when you look at the poll results on the Poll thread, then it would seem that some people are? You can sigh, but Derek hasn't been lying about what he does or has done has he? That's the difference. Derek hasn't gone yet, but everyone's acting like it's already a foregone conclusion. Until it happens, it proves nothing. Well the fact that Derek has been in conversations with Rick Dyer for some months now and is actually entertaining the idea that maybe Rick Dyer is telling the truth as is taking him up on his offer, it kinda looks promising? So, any luck with other "Musky" photos, aside from fish? Well weirdly enough, Musky Allen 'friended' me on Facebook the other day. He told me he was really upset that people didnt believe his statement. (If someone didnt believe anything I said I too would be really upset too). Anyway I have seen his profile in more depth and he does seem to be the person he claims to be (not that I doubted him). Edited February 20, 2013 by JackiLB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Here is Rick Dyer in 2010 http://www.blogtalkr...foot-its-a-scam Listen to the last 14 minutes Edited February 20, 2013 by PsyShroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawk-o Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 Well you should consider Dyer once dressed his brother in law up as a Dr. and paraded him out to "confirm" a body. Same tricks... WRONG! that was Whittens Brother. At least get your info correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adam2323 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 So Dyer was fortunate enough to find the IDEAL SHILL...a pathological liar. How convenient. he KNEW HIM LONG BEFORE ....ITS A PLANNED EVENT BETWEEN THEM WRONG! that was Whittens Brother. At least get your info correct! True enough Hawk but DYER was neck deep in it with them...do you denie this? JACKI so MA randomly find you on FB and then randomly friends you...whats up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VioletX Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 hold up.. interpretation? The only one that he's given interpretation on is the Meldrum emails. But again even in 2009 he never emailed him. It doesn't discount that he never trained under Rene' or had Rene's notes, or the lawsuit. Everything has been lies. So of course he sounds convincing, because he's good at it. And you can say I'm shooting the messenger, but check the old thread. I was calling out Musky on his background before he had the visit, interview or lies. Just out of curiousity, did Musky ever respond about training with Rene' or the notes? Are we assuming this because there is no on-line evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts