Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I agree Cath, I don't think the 2nd video is useful because there are many contradictions. Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 JackiLB - I see, I get your point. You are perhaps discounting the bust idea and a witness to a video based on what Benboy has said, given his expertise in prop making. Yes, I get where you are coming from. Thanks for posting the full statement again. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) So this homeless kid is credible when he mentions gunshots, but not when he says there were only two SUV's at the location, no freezer truck mentioned, and that Dyer didn't leave with a squatch body. Seems like whatever doesn't fit the narrative gets discarded. The first interview with the kid had all the flavor of "Who the hell are you?" from the kid, The second interview, done days later, the kid was relaxed, as the cameraman probably met with the kid beforehand, speaking to him. The first interview was likely the kid trying to figure out who these unfamiliar people were and if they were cops or not. Believe it or not, not everyone appreciates surprise interviews on camera. What about Dyer's claims in 2010 that Bigfoot isn't real, and then his latest claim that in 2009, he went to investigate the couple's sighting behind home depot, and supposedly saw one? How does a man see a Bigfoot in 2009, and from then on, rail against the bigfoot community saying "Bigfoot is a scam!" and then all of a sudden, 2012, he believes in them? That's a major inconsistency. One that has been blatantly ignored by the Dyer proponents. This is Dyer's old Blogtalkradio account from 2010. Notice the Host name: "BIGFOOT IS A SCAM!" http://www.blogtalkr.../bigfoottracker Then in October 2012, he changes his tune. He makes a new account. However, he doesn't delete the old account. http://www.blogtalkr...gfoottrackerllc I have found nothing in the 2010 episodes that even points to Rick mentioning anything about seeing a bigfoot in San Antonio in 2009. No, because he only made that up recently as a backstory for this new hoax. Please Rick, explain this one away. I dare you. Edited February 27, 2013 by PsyShroom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 What about Dyer's claims in 2010 that Bigfoot isn't real, and then his latest claim that in 2009, he went to investigate the couple's sighting behind home depot, and supposedly saw one? How does a man see a Bigfoot in 2009, and from then on, rail against the bigfoot community saying "Bigfoot is a scam!" and then all of a sudden, 2012, he believes in them? That's a major inconsistency. One that has been blatantly ignored by the Dyer proponents. This is Dyer's old Blogtalkradio account from 2010. Notice the Host name: "BIGFOOT IS A SCAM!" http://www.blogtalkr.../bigfoottracker Then in October 2012, he changes his tune. He makes a new account. However, he doesn't delete the old account. http://www.blogtalkr...gfoottrackerllc I have found nothing in the 2010 episodes that even points to Rick mentioning anything about seeing a bigfoot in San Antonio in 2009. No, because he only made that up recently as a backstory for this new hoax. This gets continually ignored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Steve Byrne Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I assumed it was a prop because the guy next to it seemed to be holding it in his right arm. The thing the got most of my attention was that there was a guy in contact with it also looking towards the camera, and that they were making adjustments. As far as anyone passing much judgement on the appliance itself... I don't know. It did not appear to be a guy in a suit and didn't make sense as that. The holder seemed connected to the "prop" and you only see the two of them for a few moments. The obvious point of the clip was to reveal the hoax. At this point I don't feel particularly lucky to have seen it. You guys should enjoy your ride. I obviously have an anti dyer agenda/antihoaxhoaxerliar complex.... Muahahehehaha!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 This gets continually ignored! It gets ignored because not even the late great Gregory Hines could tap dance his way around it. it doesn't fit the current Dyer narrative, so it gets ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 He's a showman, plain and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Psy, So this homeless kid is credible when he mentions gunshots, but not when he says there were only two SUV's at the location, no freezer truck mentioned, and that Dyer didn't leave with a squatch body. Seems like whatever doesn't fit the narrative gets discarded.The first interview with the kid had all the flavor of "Who the hell are you?" from the kid, The second interview, done days later, the kid was relaxed, as the cameraman probably met with the kid beforehand, speaking to him. The first interview was likely the kid trying to figure out who these unfamiliar people were and if they were cops or not. Believe it or not, not everyone appreciates surprise interviews on camera. Did you read what I wrote. I said yes the story is interesting. But many of you don't accept Musky's Story or even the new FB/FB talk, yet you will accept the Homeless guys. Just seems odd to me. Like I said its good and bad for both sides. But don't forget and your missing it the Interviewer the first time felt the guy was high on something. He even picked up some heavy wire cutters which made the interviewer nervous. Its interesting story i don't think it is a absolute +Plus for either side of the RD story. Again the side I am on is I will wait and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WldHrtRnch Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 This gets continually ignored! Understatement!! This along with Mark's sources' statement, Steve's statement and other little tidbits here and there that do not fit well into the RD story. These little tidbits, some verifiable facts, have not gone unnoticed for many though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Well sweeps ends today. Has anyone seen the story anywhere? I'll be sure to watch AC's Ridiculist tonight just in case. Rich you are a gem! I think I can say it for a lot of us, not all, but you are a good guy! You can say it for me. Rich is reasonable, soft spoken, doesn't like stress , and tries to cool people down when things get heated. If anyone here is a humble wait-and-see-er, it's Rich. He's cool in my book. Edited February 27, 2013 by Belmar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 I dont think anyone has stated we take the young mans word as proof positive and i will remind you again he is not the one claiming to have or seen a dead bigfoot. We dont know if he was high, that is speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrowhead Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 (edited) Well sweeps ends today. Has anyone seen the story anywhere? I'll be sure to watch AC's Ridiculist tonight just in case. The funny thing is last weeks sighting and cell phone blobsquatch in Port Neches, TX seemed to have gotten more air time than the dead BF story. Edited February 27, 2013 by Arrowhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Psy, Did you read what I wrote. I said yes the story is interesting. But many of you don't accept Musky's Story or even the new FB/FB talk, yet you will accept the Homeless guys. Just seems odd to me. Like I said its good and bad for both sides. But don't forget and your missing it the Interviewer the first time felt the guy was high on something. He even picked up some heavy wire cutters which made the interviewer nervous. Its interesting story i don't think it is a absolute +Plus for either side of the RD story. Again the side I am on is I will wait and see. Unlike Musky, the kid didn't contradict himself, nor did he fraudulently claim association with Rene Dahinden. He also never claimed to have invited Dr. Meldrum anywhere. As for his behavior in the first video: Put yourself in his shoes. There you are, a squatter, on a piece of land that you could be evicted from at any moment. Well, in walks what looks like two "do gooders" with video camera in hand. Are these people going to bring down trouble on his head? He doesn't know that they won't. When I was 23 I was in that Kid's position, squatting in a tent and being run off occasionally by police or property owners, while trying to hold down a job, praying that my "home" wasn't disturbed when I got back. I looked at anyone who came around my campsite with suspicion, and kept my knife handy, and I wasn't high on anything. His demeanor in vid 1 wasn't out of the ordinary for that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 Yeah but given the fact that you have CATEGORICALLY LIED about your 'source' being a friend of mine, I think from now on Ihylda no one is going to take what you say very seriously. Wait, why aren't you applying these same standards to Allen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 27, 2013 Share Posted February 27, 2013 So this homeless kid is credible when he mentions gunshots, but not when he says there were only two SUV's at the location, no freezer truck mentioned, and that Dyer didn't leave with a squatch body. Seems like whatever doesn't fit the narrative gets discarded. The first interview with the kid had all the flavor of "Who the hell are you?" from the kid, The second interview, done days later, the kid was relaxed, as the cameraman probably met with the kid beforehand, speaking to him. The first interview was likely the kid trying to figure out who these unfamiliar people were and if they were cops or not. Believe it or not, not everyone appreciates surprise interviews on camera. What about Dyer's claims in 2010 that Bigfoot isn't real, and then his latest claim that in 2009, he went to investigate the couple's sighting behind home depot, and supposedly saw one? How does a man see a Bigfoot in 2009, and from then on, rail against the bigfoot community saying "Bigfoot is a scam!" and then all of a sudden, 2012, he believes in them? That's a major inconsistency. One that has been blatantly ignored by the Dyer proponents. This is Dyer's old Blogtalkradio account from 2010. Notice the Host name: "BIGFOOT IS A SCAM!" http://www.blogtalkr.../bigfoottracker Then in October 2012, he changes his tune. He makes a new account. However, he doesn't delete the old account. http://www.blogtalkr...gfoottrackerllc I have found nothing in the 2010 episodes that even points to Rick mentioning anything about seeing a bigfoot in San Antonio in 2009. No, because he only made that up recently as a backstory for this new hoax. Please Rick, explain this one away. I dare you. Excellent post. I am with Belmar - I have no idea how these things mentioned above by Psyshroom keeps getting ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts