Guest Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 Ive never understood the drama that has been built up against him. I dont have a horse in this race. Why criticize him? Because Matt Moneymaker said so?? Sasquatch will show up for Todd before they show up for a tv crew of about 30 or so people on a "finding bigfoot" production. Again, i dont have a horse in this race, but i find it funny that Todd's findings have been slammed, as if people was there with him, but others who have produced nothing get a pass. Out of all the stills and footage that Standing has released, there is only ONE questionable one, and thats the one that looks like a puppet. One critic said it was proof Todd was faking it because it didnt look like the others. My response is, there are different species of Sasquatch, so of course, a different look isnt proof of anything. Lets say that Todd faked his footage and stills. There is ONE footage he released that there is no way he faked, and thats the one where that huge Sasqatch got up from its hiding place on the side of that hill and turned away as it got up. No way that was faked, Too huge and fluid for a "man in a suit". I applaud Les Stroud for seeking the truth for himself and not listening to the constant criticism of Standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2015 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2015 Todd has also produced nothing........because photos and plaster casts mean nothing. So between him and Moneymaker its just a battle over prestege and notoriety, nothing more. But at least I dont think Moneymaker has outright fabricated anything. As you yourself said that some of Todd's work is questionable.......thats a trust issue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) The problem with Standing is he got caught hoaxing. This automatically puts everything he ever did into question. And if he is a known hoaxer then what makes that video any different? Because it looks real? How come there are only 3 seconds of video which supposedly took months to set up? More importantly, Standing KNOWS that was a bear but he edited out a 3 second clip of it to concoct his hoax. I'll bet that bear later turned around and did a jig, but Standing certainly won't show you that part. So did that bigfoot just hunker down after that until Standing ran out of tape? You would be shocked how human-like a skinned bear looks. Except for the head, which we conveniently don't get to see. Otherwise, the result is a real looking creature because it was. Standing controls all the footage and how it is presented to us. Months to set up a lousy 3 seconds? Right. Standing might be another Freeman, who may have had an encounter and felt it was ok to embellish the truth with a hoax or 2. But getting caught hoaxing gives you zero credibility and IMO Standing is a full time professional hoaxer. But it's got him this far and AFAIK it's not illegal to profit from a hoax. But gettin' caught with your hand in the cookie jar is usually a death sentence for a professional hoaxer. Otherwise, just another bear hoax folks! Move along, nothin' to see here..(the crowd disperses) Edited June 11, 2015 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 i could care less what MM thinks/says, but either way TS made his own bed and has to lie in it .......apparently he has. im not sure who gets a free pass, as any one is fair game and gets punched around a bit when hoax emerges.....or even with extraordinary claims for that matter. give them enough rope ( and time ) then many will hang themselves. once incriminated the jaded rest of us have little patience for the guilty. sorry , but that's the way it seems to work anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) The problem with Standing is he got caught hoaxing. This automatically puts everything he ever did into question. And if he is a known hoaxer then what makes that video any different? Because it looks real? How come there are only 3 seconds of video which supposedly took months to set up? More importantly, Standing KNOWS that was a bear but he edited out a 3 second clip of it to concoct his hoax. I'll bet that bear later turned around and did a jig, but Standing certainly won't show you that part. So did that bigfoot just hunker down after that until Standing ran out of tape? You would be shocked how human-like a skinned bear looks. Except for the head, which we conveniently don't get to see. Otherwise, the result is a real looking creature because it was. Standing controls all the footage and how it is presented to us. Months to set up a lousy 3 seconds? Right. Standing might be another Freeman, who may have had an encounter and felt it was ok to embellish the truth with a hoax or 2. But getting caught hoaxing gives you zero credibility and IMO Standing is a full time professional hoaxer. But it's got him this far and AFAIK it's not illegal to profit from a hoax. But gettin' caught with your hand in the cookie jar is usually a death sentence for a professional hoaxer. Otherwise, just another bear hoax folks! Move along, nothin' to see here..(the crowd disperses) When??? WHEN did Standing get caught hoaxing? Thats my problem. All i have seen is people's OPINIONS of his stuff, i havent read where anyone caught him hoaxing. Where is the proof of that??? Edited June 11, 2015 by seminole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 I realized he was a faker when he didn't show the bodies of the animals he took video of. Then there was this It's clearly artificial. Does that not count as hoaxing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) When??? WHEN did Standing get caught hoaxing? Thats my problem. All i have seen is people's OPINIONS of his stuff, i havent read where anyone caught him hoaxing. Where is the proof of that??? Ah, so you do have a horse in this race. You said yourself that Standing may have fabricated 1 video. It was without a doubt fabricated because the bigfoot was inserted into the scene with Photoshop (or some other image editor). Did he do that for advertising? If that was the case, then given the nature of the subject, he should have informed everyone. This tells me that he doesn't really give a crap what you think, which makes me suspicious. So how many fabricated images of bigfoot does it take to be classified as a hoaxer? You do realize that his sister is a makeup artist, don't you? Todd just ran his course, is all. Edited June 11, 2015 by Gigantofootecus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted June 11, 2015 Share Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) one hoax is all it takes, and some thread around here already broke it down nicely. especially the "muppet" pics. iirc there was an example of one "BF" face that when overlayed with TS facial pic the shape / structure was a match . methinks gigantofootecus has a point regarding horse races. Edited June 11, 2015 by Doc Holliday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 12, 2015 Admin Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I definitely see progression in his "work". I'm going to assume I'm talking to Todd himself here, I have questions. a) Why are you anti kill? b )Do you really believe that Bigfoot army would wipe out a SEAL team? It's simple really...... if what you have going up there is real? And you really want to prove its existence? We have some Canadian Project Grendel members that would love to take a walk with you. Edited June 12, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Ah, so you do have a horse in this race. You said yourself that Standing may have fabricated 1 video. It was without a doubt fabricated because the bigfoot was inserted into the scene with Photoshop (or some other image editor). Did he do that for advertising? If that was the case, then given the nature of the subject, he should have informed everyone. This tells me that he doesn't really give a crap what you think, which makes me suspicious. So how many fabricated images of bigfoot does it take to be classified as a hoaxer? You do realize that his sister is a makeup artist, don't you? Todd just ran his course, is all. Im saying, who has proven that it was a muppet? My opinion doesnt mean anything. Nobody's opinion matters unless its proven he faked it. I guess Les Shroud's credibility is nothing also since he had Standing on his show????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Several people have proven the muppet was at least edited in Photoshop, which is a hoax, IMO. Call it what you want but it doesn't bode well for Todd. Les Shroud is like the rest of us. We can all be fooled if we trust the hoaxer. Some hoaxers are good at gaining your trust and some eventually show their hands. The dissenters tipped Todd's hand exposing him as a hoaxer which alerted Les. His rep remains intact because he distanced himself from Todd when new info came in. No harm, no foul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 12, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Not worthy of discussion until you read ten or more threads here about him. Join premium, read 1.0 see how he structured it all, and then sucked in the biggest name in the field with some small fry too. When people do their due diligence they don't have to rely on simply the face validity or it sounds ok. Take it to the next level, the smell test, confirmatory and predictive validity of multiple things that never added up. For that my friend you will have to read, read and read and not depend on somebody else's opinion. His behavior when challenged by John Bindernagel at Sasquatch Summit 2014 summed it up for me. He was a waste of time and nearly dragged several good people down with him. Edited June 12, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Todd's "findings" go back to a movie he was making in 2006 called Sylvanic, about a group of teens gone missing (a 'Blair Witch' found footage type movie). It's even still up on IMDB- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728675/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 The first video clips he released was of his sister having an encounter in the snow. Read more about it here- http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/sylvanic--todd-standing.html At some point Todd decided to present Sylvanic as being real, and his fictional movie plans got swept under the rug. So yeah, plenty of reason to criticize him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) Several people have proven the muppet was at least edited in Photoshop, which is a hoax, IMO. Call it what you want but it doesn't bode well for Todd. Les Shroud is like the rest of us. We can all be fooled if we trust the hoaxer. Some hoaxers are good at gaining your trust and some eventually show their hands. The dissenters tipped Todd's hand exposing him as a hoaxer which alerted Les. His rep remains intact because he distanced himself from Todd when new info came in. No harm, no foul. Anybody can make ANY photograph appear shopped with software. Who has PROVEN that Todd has faked images? Who has the PUPPET itself in their hands? Next, ANYBODY can SAY Les has distanced himself from Standing, but has Les HIMSELF said so??? Again, i dont have a horse in this race, but i do see that there are people who are slamming this dude because its the IN thing to do. Edited June 12, 2015 by seminole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Why? OK, this. I mean, just this (and that's a person in a suit, the arms are enough). The things they did are scientifically repeatable [nice phrase there, just what somebody listening to too many skeptics would steal]...so they aren't going to share it with anyone? Because someone might kill one? OK, Todd. NAWAC would settle for proof without a body. But they are looking to kill one. You could stop that. You aren't...? Why the criticism of Standing? Oh I couldn't even guess. Doesn't share anything; charges $$$. Hucksterama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts