Jump to content

Why The Criticism Of Todd Standing, But Others Get A Pass?


Guest

Recommended Posts

^You've got it backwards. Todd DID blink in his video, which at least showed a living animal courtesy of his make-up artist sister. And if you think muppetfoot isn't solid evidence of a hoax, then you've got it bad, IMO.

 

 

I had no idea that it was proven that TS was IN FACT the one in the video blinking...all I have seen are assumptions.

 

And, "Muppetfoot" is NOT solid evidence of a hoax.  Nor is the research that has been done to disprove it.  It simply is what it is at this point.

 

Personally?  I think TS is full of BS...but I don't have proof of that either!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

I am certainly not a defender of TS and do believe some of the allegations of hoax with his pictures and videos but to be quite honest I have seen nothing proving that. That word proof is difficult, problematic and very overused. People use proof when they should use the work probable, or likely, simply just looks like. All or any of these may be applicable but proof of something is a exacting process or standard that I have not seen applied to this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get sick and tired of hearing that this can't advance without proof.  That is wrong, and science does not operate that way.

 

There is more than enough evidence for anyone taking a reasonable look at this topic to know Standing ain't the goods and can be conveniently ignored, and that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

I really do not understand your last post DWA. Standing's history and credibility have little to do with science one way or the other. I was not talking about proof of existence but proof TS is a fabricator. I don't even think he claims to be doing science which is remarkable since he makes so many other claims.

Edited by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no idea that it was proven that TS was IN FACT the one in the video blinking...all I have seen are assumptions.

 

And, "Muppetfoot" is NOT solid evidence of a hoax.  Nor is the research that has been done to disprove it.  It simply is what it is at this point.

 

Personally?  I think TS is full of BS...but I don't have proof of that either!  

 

I never said Blinky was proof. I just meant you must have mixed up Blinky with Muppetfoot because you can't possibly think Muppetfoot is a real animal. Do you need proof that Miss Piggy isn't a real pig?

 

As far as Todd being Blinky is concerned, that's just my opinion. You're right, I have no proof that Todd had his make-up artist sister turn his head into a blinking bigfoot. But if Blinky isn't an actual bigfoot, then let's apply Occam's Razor.

 

post-337-0-97237300-1434990241.jpg

 

As far as proof goes, why doesn't Photoshopping Muppetfoot count as solid evidence of a hoax? Why else would you be staging and editing real bigfoot photos? That would be the kiss of death for your million dollar bigfoot photos. Do you actually think Todd would risk that if Muppetfoot was a real bigfoot? He certainly knows that to authenticate any bigfoot photos they must endure intense scrutiny to establish their provenance. So  how does Photoshop fit into this scenario?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow.......that's cool, he should re-make the old horror movie, be a legit Star, and call it Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Standing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always maintained Standing should just come clean on what he has done and make portrayal videos.    He contends his purpose is to get protections for BF.  (Actually he just likes the public attention).    I think it quite likely he has actually had BF contact.  But the fabricated stuff just puts doubt on everything.     If he came clean and did not try to pass off his fabricated stuff as real, he might be able to at least achieve the same entertainment level as Finding Bigfoot.    Most of what people like about "Finding Bigfoot" is the witness interviews and recreations and what people don't like is the night investigations.    No reason Standing or anyone else could not capitalize on that, interview witnesses, and make recreations of sighting reports.    That would probably serve his purposes.     But to do that he has to come clean on his fabrications to have any credibility.  

 

Im leaning more towards what you said. Im NOT saying he has NOT fabricated stuff, i dont know. All im saying he, there are others who are cashing in on this " squatching" thing and dont get flack that Standing does. I admit, that one picture DOES look like a muppet, but the videos, there is NOTHING about them that look fake, especially the one where he filmed the big one standing up and turning away up on that hill. Much too massive for a man in the suit. When you watch the Finding Bigfoot show, you see how HARD it is to fake the mass of these beings.

I had no idea that it was proven that TS was IN FACT the one in the video blinking...all I have seen are assumptions.

 

And, "Muppetfoot" is NOT solid evidence of a hoax.  Nor is the research that has been done to disprove it.  It simply is what it is at this point.

 

Personally?  I think TS is full of BS...but I don't have proof of that either!  

 

Couldnt have said it any better. Thats why i started this thread. You stated how you feel about Todd, but admitted that just because you had a feeling about the situation, doesnt make what you THINK the truth. Thats all i was really saying. Too many people just jumping on the bandwagon because of Todd's reputation, without really knowing what is what. Thats WHY i love Les Shroud. He couldve ignored Standing from the jump and chose to have other researchers on the show, but, like Les loosely said: " either Standing is hoaxing, or he has the best evidence yet of Sasquatch."

Edited by seminole
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one Standing video that could be real IMO......he's filming from a rise over to another rise above a low area, and something black is clearly shown moving through the trees. No clear views, but it seems to be moving pretty swift & fast, and certainly faster than any human I've seen, plus for once he seems to have a truly excited tone to his voice on the film.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the problem:  hoaxers can run into the real thing, and to call it just another hoax because this guy is a hoaxer doesn't really wash.  It's just like the PGF; don't tell me they hoaxed it when no evidence exists that they could have done that!    Each piece of evidence deserves evaluation on its own merits, not "he's a hoaxer so that's a hoax."


The question is always:  could a hoaxer have done that?  How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

While the image in the previous post is not very clear,  the terrain the subject is stepping up with relative ease sure points to that being authentic.     Just one step displayed seems impossible for a human in the same terrain.    Standings problem now is that with stuff done that looks like his face worked over and other puppet like subjects,   he could get the modern equivalent of the P/G film and no one, including proponents, would think it authentic.    That is why I get all bend out of shape when some skeptic lumps me in with known hoaxers just because I am a proponent.    Anyone that hoaxes is damaging to BF research.   The subject is difficult enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were it not for the damage to humanity's store of knowledge, I'd consider it cosmic justice for a hoaxer to have a Patterson happen to him, and not be believed because of his history.  But, I guess, it would *still* be cosmic justice, huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about Todd of course, but I'm not having quite as many issues as I do with that Tom Biscardi dude. Someone even told me once that he gets paid to discredit and crap in the Bigfoot pool, I've heard crazier things.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BFF Patron

Bigtex, wish we could prove that paid to discredit claim. That has far reaching ramifications if true. It has always seemed very suspicious to me that some skeptics have the time and interest to spend as much time as they do on a website of something they do not believe in. And they are not just on one site either. Some are around on several. I am retired and I don't have time for more than one forum. Getting paid to spread skepticism would certainly explain that part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...