Jump to content

Todd Standing Hoaxing? Is Blinky Todd Standing? - New Pics/dna Results


Recommended Posts

bipedalist
BFF Patron

I'd be willing to bet it's a studio shot.  No natural sun at all, artificial shaving cream snow, snipped shrubs/evergreens, paper mache rocks, the whole nine yards if you delve into it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Thanks for posting the larger images earlier today, Pragmatic... :)

 

 

I made another animation with them....and noticed something new....the subject's hair, above it's lifeless eyes....disappears, when the branches appear...

 

Sylly-vanicAG6_zps414e7bdf.gif

 

 

Fascinating... :huh:

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Even more fascinating...  :swoon:  ....(using kitakaze's 'Tina Turner-foot' image)...

 

Sylly-vanicAG9_zps08432cc1.gif

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

Take another look at the gif- I left it in the repost above... look at the glint in the eyes- it moves up and down; the light source has changed. So some time did pass between the times that the two images were shot. A person would have to be pretty gullible to accept these images as real.

 

 

The glint in the eyes is a significant detail, Salubrious...I don't think anyone would have bothered Photoshopping such a small detail into these images.

 

And, looking at the last animation I just posted....I think that rather extensive 'change of scenery' rules-out Photoshopping, as the cause of the changes.

Edited by SweatyYeti
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take another look at the gif- I left it in the repost above... look at the glint in the eyes- it moves up and down; the light source has changed. So some time did pass between the times that the two images were shot. A person would have to be pretty gullible to accept these images as real.

Only the left eye is visible and the added branch extends into the eye region causing the glint to change. The same graphic head is being used for all the composites. It has been Photoshopped into several different scenes and some foliage has been added over the face in some images. All done with image editing software and simple to do. The source of the head might be a puppet or it could be CGI. It's crude either way and I doubt Meldrum ever bought it.

I also doubt that Standing authorized any of these images. Does anyone actually think he would put out multiple versions of an obviously Photoshopped bigfoot head in the exact same pose but with different scenery? Was Standing THAT stupid? What's the provenance with this puppetfoot anyway? What does Standing say? To catch him with his pants down, we need to get his intent to hoax on the record, then he's toast.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti

^

 

Knowing the provenance of these puppetfoot images sure would help settle the mystery, Giganto.  

 

Also, I think Jeff Meldrum could help, by letting us know what he has seen in Todd's videos...and whether any of these images are in Video #2....the video of this particular "Bigfoot". 

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron

Only the left eye is visible and the added branch extends into the eye region causing the glint to change. The same graphic head is being used for all the composites. It has been Photoshopped into several different scenes and some foliage has been added over the face in some images. All done with image editing software and simple to do. The source of the head might be a puppet or it could be CGI. It's crude either way and I doubt Meldrum ever bought it.

I also doubt that Standing authorized any of these images. Does anyone actually think he would put out multiple versions of an obviously Photoshopped bigfoot head in the exact same pose but with different scenery? Was Standing THAT stupid? What's the provenance with this puppetfoot anyway? What does Standing say? To catch him with his pants down, we need to get his intent to hoax on the record, then he's toast.

 

These puppetheads were clearly produced in his videos on his video channels (which Adrian Erickson at one time bought out or bought into), I don't know where photoshop has anything to do with it?!  After Erickson entered the scene, Standings website went dead for a long period of time.  He (Standing) charged five bucks for these videos at one time, ask somebody that bought and saved the videos.  There must be someone unless it was a one-time license to play a file at his site.  The wayback machine probably has details. 

Edited by bipedalist
Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

I also doubt that Standing authorized any of these images. Does anyone actually think he would put out multiple versions of an obviously Photoshopped bigfoot head in the exact same pose but with different scenery? Was Standing THAT stupid? What's the provenance with this puppetfoot anyway? What does Standing say? To catch him with his pants down, we need to get his intent to hoax on the record, then he's toast.

 

All were released by Standing at different times. A couple of the photos can be seen here released by Standing in 2010:

 

http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/sylvanic--todd-standing.html

 

A couple other variations can be seen as cover shots of his videos:

 

http://www.bigfootnorth.com/#!video-reel/cpog

 

I don't think they're shopped at all. Like others pointed out the eye glare is consistent with a change in the light source.

Edited by roguefooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. There's got to be more to this. I also have a hard time believing that Meldrum could be that gullible. Also, as lifeless this thing looks, I find it very unique and original in its construction and appearance. Hats off to the creator for coming up with a very innovative depiction...much better than the Chewbacca of Erickson and Ketchum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if there is more to this, the only way you are going to see it is buy paying Todd Standing some money. I've seen this movie before (Erickson Project) and predict that it's going to come to a whole bunch of nothing. As for Meldrum, this has made me reconsider everything he has said about the subject of bigfoot. I'm no expert on primate feet and locomotion, and I repected his opinion on footprints. Now I'm not so sure that he might be intrepeting things that aren't even there. For him and Bindernagel to look at these things and not recognize them as fakes, as they also did with the "Matilda" wookie mask hoax, is so weird that it almost seems as if they are delusional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1980squatch

The glint in the eyes is a significant detail, Salubrious...I don't think anyone would have bothered Photoshopping such a small detail into these images.

 

Indeed, great catch Salubrious and again great work Sweaty, I see you are getting some play over on Bigfoot Evidence.  Although I don't think Standing and Meldrum will be fazed here it will take many of those folks in the "who knows? Maybe.." camp into being convinced of hoax.  I don't know who is keeping Standing employed as a full time bigfooter these past few years but how will that person feel...

Link to post
Share on other sites

@barncat. Agreed. This all has the potential to completely torpedo their reputations, their work and the area of research that they hoped to have officially legitimized in the eyes of academia.

We deserve answers on what they have seen. And I'm not paying Standing a **** cent to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the second link that Roguefooter posted you can see in at least one of the videos that the muppet thing is being videoed at some point and it's not just a photo.  The second video is the only one I've watched so far, but the very beginning of it shows very short video footage.

 

I remember many months ago somebody here ordered and watched the video.  I don't remember who it was, but they were impressed with what they saw. I'm surprised nobody who has seen all the videos has come forward. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hairy Man

Did you notice the disclaimer on the top of the Bigfoot North video page. It reads: While we don't support or deny any particular claims made in these films, these caught our attention and are an interesting watch. If you have suggestions for other videos of note, please let us know so we can add them.

 

Who puts a disclaimer on their own web page showing their own videos?

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • gigantor unlocked this topic
×
×
  • Create New...