ShadowBorn Posted October 21, 2015 Moderator Share Posted October 21, 2015 Shadowborn. Would you look at your photos again and see if the eyes aren't much higher on the head than the eyes of a human? Personally, when I see this guy's photographs, I immediately discount them for that one reason - the eyes are in the wrong place on the head. In fact, I don't see how anyone could very easily do a decent fake, as the eyes will always be too low when compared to what I'd call the real thing. Seems that above the eyes, the forehead part starts to angle back, where ours is kinda vertical - but I'm going from memory. I honestly don't remember the eyebrows as such, but I was pretty much stunned at what I was looking at. Fararcher The eyes are bit higher on the cheeks and a bit longated as for the fore head it does seem more slanted, But the nose seems small camped to the face and the eyes do seem larger compared to the face as well.It almost seems wider by the eyes on the face with hich cheek bones but not that high. The picture makes the creature look viking like but larger proportions. From memory you did a good job describing. Yes the eye's are higher up from the mouth though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Shadowborn. Would you look at your photos again and see if the eyes aren't much higher on the head than the eyes of a human? Personally, when I see this guy's photographs, I immediately discount them for that one reason - the eyes are in the wrong place on the head. In fact, I don't see how anyone could very easily do a decent fake, as the eyes will always be too low when compared to what I'd call the real thing. Seems that above the eyes, the forehead part starts to angle back, where ours is kinda vertical - but I'm going from memory. I honestly don't remember the eyebrows as such, but I was pretty much stunned at what I was looking at. Fararcher The eyes are bit higher on the cheeks and a bit longated as for the fore head it does seem more slanted, But the nose seems small camped to the face and the eyes do seem larger compared to the face as well.It almost seems wider by the eyes on the face with hich cheek bones but not that high. The picture makes the creature look viking like but larger proportions. From memory you did a good job describing. Yes the eye's are higher up from the mouth though. Thank you. Time to time I see that critter in my mind again, and I can't even recall the nose. I think the entirety had me a bit stunned. That's why I see a big difference in what this Todd feller put out as photos of a critter - they can't be - their eyes are located where a human's eyes are located. And in Todd's photos, the forehead don't start slanting back either. More vertical, like a human's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Three words folks Hall of Shamehttp://squatchdetective.weebly.com/sylvanic--todd-standing.html This is Standings third run around the block if not more. He is not some newfound product of Stroud, Bindernagel or Meldrum Edited October 22, 2015 by bipedalist 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think Mr. Standing may be receiving way more benefit of the doubt from those that did not buy his videos of muppets, computer flopped images, incredible variations in Earths rotation, and the species incredible ability to pose in the exact same point after months or years, and other really cool staged video tricks. Perhaps the purveyor of such incredible video footage may feel his 'supporters' got exactly what they deserved for putting their faith in him. Or he may have limitless love for an unknown species, of which he may or may not have had any real encounter. Even if the ends justify the means I think he has not furthered anything, except getting to hang out with cool people and being on television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I have little doubt that Standing had some legit experience, but truth is that is how he justified the fabrications, just too difficult to get actual footage...or so he rationalized, it is our job to ignore him more fully in the future as he is sure to pop up again when the dust has fully settled. If nothing else credit him with relentless self preservation, and the fortitude to keep on crashing and burning, surely a sucker is born every day, so he is up to 300 suckers or more since last count, or is that a sucker is born every minute, either way hope springs eternal. Edited October 22, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExTrumpet Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Shadowborn. Would you look at your photos again and see if the eyes aren't much higher on the head than the eyes of a human? Personally, when I see this guy's photographs, I immediately discount them for that one reason - the eyes are in the wrong place on the head. In fact, I don't see how anyone could very easily do a decent fake, as the eyes will always be too low when compared to what I'd call the real thing. Seems that above the eyes, the forehead part starts to angle back, where ours is kinda vertical - but I'm going from memory. I honestly don't remember the eyebrows as such, but I was pretty much stunned at what I was looking at. Fararcher The eyes are bit higher on the cheeks and a bit longated as for the fore head it does seem more slanted, But the nose seems small camped to the face and the eyes do seem larger compared to the face as well.It almost seems wider by the eyes on the face with hich cheek bones but not that high. The picture makes the creature look viking like but larger proportions. From memory you did a good job describing. Yes the eye's are higher up from the mouth though. Thank you. Time to time I see that critter in my mind again, and I can't even recall the nose. I think the entirety had me a bit stunned. That's why I see a big difference in what this Todd feller put out as photos of a critter - they can't be - their eyes are located where a human's eyes are located. And in Todd's photos, the forehead don't start slanting back either. More vertical, like a human's. What, exactly, do human's eyes and foreheads look like? Hairlines? Hair and skin color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think this is more of what far archer is referring to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExTrumpet Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think this is more of what far archer is referring to! I understand, but is it a stretch to think that--if these things exist--they may vary a little bit in their appearance? And, I've seen more than a few humans with a protruding brow and a sloped forehead...many of them now in the NFL!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Ouch. (Rubs forehead and runs off crying) But seriously yes we should find variation within a species, but not too much. The chimp skull to the right will have variations but it will never look like a Human skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) I think this is more of what far archer is referring to! I understand, but is it a stretch to think that--if these things exist--they may vary a little bit in their appearance? And, I've seen more than a few humans with a protruding brow and a sloped forehead...many of them now in the NFL!! Think about what you're saying for a moment. Yes animals of a a given type can vary in appearance but animals in the wild and undomesticated animals follow a much more uniform appearance. Here's a brief bigfoot rundown on differences. Color red all the way to black, feet, MTB, no MTB, 3 toes, 4 toes, 5 toes single ball foot, double ball foot, inline toes, arched toes, walks on two legs, goes on all fours, height 7 ft - 15 ft. So where is all this variability coming from? It's not like there are umpteen thousands of them to mix and match with each other. Oh then there's the body morphing where the juvenile foot begins by looking something like a hand and changes to become the big whoppers we find all over the place. These traits are no the traits of a real living mammal let alone a primate that may share a heap of genes with us. It is however the stuff of tall tales. But I owe Mr Standing a debt of gratitude. You see folks I had him pegged early on with his overly sincere persona and dumb looking muppets. However when he got a place of distinction and importance at a certain big bigfoot conference I knew the game was up. It wasn't about truth it was about $$$$. If it was about truth the conference committee would have vetted him properly and being the "experts" they are have seen him for the fake he is. Yet it showed that everyone is welcome aboard the bigfoot train and it's not about being real or fake it's about how good you are in the show and how much $$$ you may draw in. In the end it showed what this is really all about now. Edited October 22, 2015 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I think this is more of what far archer is referring to! I understand, but is it a stretch to think that--if these things exist--they may vary a little bit in their appearance? And, I've seen more than a few humans with a protruding brow and a sloped forehead...many of them now in the NFL!! I can't draw nothing. But if you'll take just a moment to Google "how to draw a human head" - and then look at the images, you'll see what I'm talking about. You draw an oval, and halfway between the top of the oval and the bottom, you draw a horizontal line - and that's the centerline of the eyes. Doesn't matter whether one has an oval shaped head, or more of a square shaped head - the eyes are halfway between the chin and forehead. On humans. But these critters eyes are considerably higher - at least on the one I saw. (Their heads are of course larger, but their eyes are proportionally larger - I assume why they area able to take advantage of darkness.) So when I see Todd Standing's two photos supposedly of Bigfoots, I call BS. The eyes are in the location of human eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I've always enjoyed Standing and his videos. I've never seen a Sasquatch so I could not tell you if their eyes are high up on their heads or if they have eyes on the back of their heads... That being said, I've read hundreds of sighting encounters and the descriptions given by witnesses are as varied as the avatars we use to represent ourselves on this very forum. In fact, Standing's videos of the "muppet" Bigfoot match many of the descriptions I've read from witnesses. His last video, of the more "stereotypical" Bigfoot, looks about as real as one can imagine. Granted, the lack of movement, as well as the lack of any other body parts, except the head, being shown, makes it very hard to believe. However, his message and videos have proven compelling enough to draw in some big name Bigfoot celebrities like Dr. Meldrum and Les Stroud.If Standing is a hoaxer, then he's likely the best one out there and I don't think his antics are a detriment to proving the existence of these creatures. Most of the members on this forum are pretty well versed on all things Bigfoot. However, the average person knows very little about these creatures. Because of this, Standing's rhetoric comes off as compelling and believable. If I had to pick between Moneymaker and Standing, as a representative of the Bigfoot community, I'd pick Standing, simply because he comes off as being more reasonable and sane.I would not be so quick to write off Standing and his video efforts. I think his most recent videos are somewhat suspect because of the reasons already mentioned. However, I also don't believe it's that easy to create a Bigfoot face and head. His last video that was "proven" to be a hoax, by showing the reverse transformation of the Bigfoot's head into Standing, has never convinced me. If I had editing skills, I'm fairly certain I could put anybody's face in that video and they would all end up looking like that Bigfoot. I also don't think Standing's sister created the makeup for that particular Bigfoot video. If she was able to create something that realistic and believable, she's wasting her time helping her brother and really should be in Hollywood, designing special FX.That's not to say that I believe Standing filmed an actual Sasquatch. I just don't believe it was his face covered in his sister's special effects makeup. That being said, one of his earlier videos, the one that shows the Sasquatch on the cliff, slowly standing up, has always looked very real to me; simply because of the perceived mass of the creature in the video. I think that's also the video that was shown on an episode of Finding Bigfoot and determined to have been a hoax by Moneymaker and the rest of his team.Will Standing be back? You can bank on it. Standing is way too outspoken to stay in the shadows for very long. Unlike other hoaxers, he's not had a huge public downfall and can bounce back quickly, especially if his videos keep getting better.I'm still on the fence, when it comes to Standing, and I hope he does make a come back. At the very least, it will provide for some interesting debate on the forums. It's been a very long dry spell for sensational Bigfoot news or evidence and we're due something interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExTrumpet Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Ouch. (Rubs forehead and runs off crying) But seriously yes we should find variation within a species, but not too much. The chimp skull to the right will have variations but it will never look like a Human skull. Agreed, but the chimp skull differs from a gorilla, an orangutan--and certainly a dog-faced baboon. Yet, we call all them apes. We hear a lot on here from different folks about dog-face bigfoots, reds, blacks, etc...we really need a dead body. Or a live capture. Or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 All we need is a tooth to get the ball rolling..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted October 23, 2015 Share Posted October 23, 2015 Sort of like Herbie the dentist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts