Todd Neiss Addresses Dr. Jeff Meldrum: You either can accept it or continuing rearranging the deck chairs and go down with the ship


Earlier this week, Henry May posted an "open letter" urging Dr. Jeff Meldrum to disassociate himself from Todd Standing. Meldrum has his reasons to trust Standing, and posted an official response to Standing's "Blinking Bigfoot" footage. Todd Neiss, a really well-known researcher in the community, has written a message to Meldrum, and it sounds very serious. He writes this on behalf of the Bigfoot community:

Dr. Meldrum...

Please do not make the mistake of interpreting the reaction of the Bigfoot Community as a personal attack against you and/or John and Les. We all, you included, are part of a family; and as such, we have a responsibility to help one another when we see one of our own doing something that is injurious to themselves.

As for Les, he is new to our community, and as such, is susceptible to those who would exploit his naiveté and celebrity. You and John both have decades in this field and have seen it all; as have we. Standing is of the same ilk as Wallace, Biscardi, and Dyer. He has a history of making grandiose claims without providing any legitimate evidence. More to the point, he has fabricated that which he cannot prove; and demanded we simply accept it as fact. His mistake is thinking that no one would dare challenge his assertions; your’s is not even trying to.

There have been many who have researched his claims and have challenged his “evidence.” Their findings have been available for years. Without going into the numerous details, consider a few basic facts…

1) Todd Standing (a.k.a. Todd Rockwelll) is the owner of film company called “Outstanding Productions.”

2) Todd Standing’s wife, Louise Standing (a.k.a. Louise Greene) is listed as the Executive Producer and General Manager for Outstanding Productions.

3) A concerted cover-up was perpetuated to hide the fact that Louise Standing specialized in “makeup artistry” by inferring that she was actually Todd’s sister; therefore giving Todd the political cover to make the “technically correct” statement at the Sasquatch Summit that his sister was not a makeup artist. Ironically, Louise’s bio was recently altered in the last two months; removing her claim as “a makeup artist” from what it reads today.

4) Several exposés have pointed out numerous rather obvious technical and biological issues with regard to Todd’s videos of alleged Sasquatches.

5) From a purely mathematical standpoint, the odds of seeing a single Sasquatch is extremely low. The odds of seeing a single Sasquatch and being able to brandish a camera, power it up, aim it and get footage (blurry or otherwise) is even less likely. But to produce several videos of numerous Sasquatch (some at length) and in crystal clear focus is simply a mathematical impossibility.

We can understand the temptation of accepting an all-expense paid voyage on a luxury cruise liner; especially one whose passenger manifest lists the names of your contemporaries and celebrities. But when that ship bears the name, TITANIC, it matters not in whose company you drown.

We, the Bigfoot Community, are not blaming any of you for boarding, what appeared to be, a sound vessel. But there comes a moment (an epiphany) when you have to come to terms that the ship is doomed and abandon it. That time is quickly passing. We are sincerely throwing you a rope Jeff. You either can accept it or continuing rearranging the deck chairs and go down with the ship. You have a choice, and it is yours alone to make.

Do I speak for the Bigfoot Community? That is not for me to say. I do speak for myself when I say I respect your credentials, as well as your contributions to this very challenging enigma and wish you the best.

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. ^ I'm back from boarding school to annoy y'all again.

      Delete
    2. He managed to get close ups of 2-3 bigfoot faces that were just standing there. But didn't manage to get any of their bodies or film them leave. People struggle to get a blurry image of one but Todd manages three, all somehow the same distance away, close ups of heads.

      I think its unnecessary to file these big investigations on why they look fake/real. Just have a glance at the damn thing. Shown with all those real photos of chimps and humans on the Falc/Pol report it stands out like a sore thumb. How is a fucking 'scientist' getting confused here and now arguing for their authenticity?

      You've ended yourself here Meldrum.

      Delete
    3. People want Bigfoot on film, but a Blobsquatch ain't good enough, it has to be a facial close up shot. Now that one has been presented, people want their bodies. This is from someone who has doubts about the photos, and looking for a means to verify those doubts... But for something so obviously fake, why can't people show a conclusive argument? The points in Falc/Pol report got comprehensively countered here;

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      ... This is not clear cut and I think they should be judged on their up and coming evidence, to which we already know they have physical evidence to support an encounter.

      Delete
    4. So you say keep an open mind and see how this plays out? You also said keep an open mind with Dyer and Ketchum and we all seen how that turned out. You went on and on how Sykes bigfoot study would prove ONCE AND FOR ALL the existence of bigfoot which it most certainly did not. It's all on record here. You always ask for a conclusive argument against these claims but whenever one is produced you ignore it and state you own "facts". Now you once again show support and when this goes down as more empty promises you will simply find some convenient excuse why it did. This too will come to nothing and your support of it will be remembered here. As they say, one should keep an open mind but not so open than one's brain falls out. You operate on hope and faith Joe. It has become a religion to you and you will go to your grave never having you belief vindicated. I pity you - I truly do.

      Delete
    5. "You also said keep an open mind with Dyer and Ketchum and we all seen how that turned out."

      Sorry... I wasn't around for the Ketchum stuff and have only ever pointed out strange occurances with her presentations, and that I trust Erikson. I've always been very open about not supporting all of her work. Would you like to quote me where I've ever offered any support to Dyer? If that's on record here, please just quote it, shouldn't be hard right? Lies, pure lies and you have the audacity to call anyone else deceitful? I stand by everything I say about Sykes, because he's still accepting samples and working with Mullis on a hybrid study.

      I'd love for once for you to post a conclusive argument, it never materialises though and you ran away again yesterday, it's getting boring showing you up for what you are kiddo... A big bag of hot air. I've been very open of my doubts regarding Standing's photogpraphs, but it's the actions of someone with very little else to go on, and the vendetta of a life time that they should keep knocking the door with empty claims and efforts of words in people's mouths. "Facts", again... Are you little run aways when you're out of your depth... And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
    6. For someone constantly screaming to read between the lines, you sure do get upset when people use that same technique on you, eh, ol chap?

      Delete
    7. The only reason I responded to that vomit was to put the lies straight son.

      Delete
    8. Besides, you continue to ignore the glaring facts:

      1) Todd Standing (a.k.a. Todd Rockwelll) is the owner of film company called “Outstanding Productions.”

      2) Todd Standing’s wife, Louise Standing (a.k.a. Louise Greene) is listed as the Executive Producer and General Manager for Outstanding Productions.

      3) A concerted cover-up was perpetuated to hide the fact that Louise Standing specialized in “makeup artistry” by inferring that she was actually Todd’s sister; therefore giving Todd the political cover to make the “technically correct” statement at the Sasquatch Summit that his sister was not a makeup artist. Ironically, Louise’s bio was recently altered in the last two months; removing her claim as “a makeup artist” from what it reads today.

      Delete
    9. 'Jayjeti' also appears on BFF on the Standing threads on the BFF fighting Todd's corner.

      He is alone voice I'm afraid.

      The truth will out. It always does.

      MMG

      Delete
    10. 10:07... Nope! I've addressed your points on a number of occassions as follows;

      1) & 2) Todd has stated that the Standing's have made a long line of claims, resume tweeks, name changes, etc, to distance themsleves from the Bigfoot community in order get employment. Outstanding Productions is Todd's effort at becoming a documentary film maker which has always been his aim in life.

      3) Ever put something down on your resume that maybe was bending the truth a little bit? If Lousie Standing is that good at make up, then why ain't she working on the Hobbit films? Also... You're basing your very confusing claims about Louise Standing, on what people who are trying to condemn Standing are claiming... People who I might add, have got accusations and points about evidence very innacurate.

      Delete
    11. Meldrum is an idiot as well - He's chasing a "DUMB APE". He'll never see or find one, they're not DUMB APE's, we're the DUMB APEs. F - Meldrum.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous wrote this:
      "'Jayjeti' also appears on BFF on the Standing threads on the BFF fighting Todd's corner. "

      My answer, Its a lie. I objectively look at the evidence you Standing haters advance and give you my evaluation. I state I don't know if it is faked or not but I note how some of the arguments are ridiculous, and for that I'm your enemy along with Standing.

      I'm a lone voice because of the intolerance and venom you people inject runs most others off who would dare not tow your line. Emotion has usurped reason among the get Standing at all costs crowd.

      Delete
    13. Question to Todd Niess. How did you come by the information that T. Standing is the source behind people believing Louise was Todd's sister?

      I assume its probably more a matter of someone making that error, and like most everything else in these conspiracy theories it gets repeated by all his detractors like its fact.

      And you might be starting a new one, that Todd Standing is the source behind people believing Louise was his sister. That Todd did that to hide that his wife was a make up artist. Why would Standing want to hide that his wife does beauty parlor cosmetics?

      This is a hallmark of this debate, baseless wild accusations.

      Delete
  2. First !
    please pass the popcorn with extra butter 'cuz this is getting interesting

    ReplyDelete
  3. Goodness gracious, Leave the Dr.alone the only thing hes guilty of is being open minded.and who is this Moron writing with enough gusto and false bravado that it's liable to induce vomiting, the Community, piss off bud there's no such thing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't piss Todd off. He might write a scathing report on you. I guess his v-jayjay is bleeding. Poor poooosey.

      Delete
    2. You want to know why the rest of the world think bigfoot is a joke? Why anyone associated with this field is thought of as a wack job? Why anyone who says they saw a bigfoot gets ridiculed? Why most people who have a sighting never speak of it? It's because of HOAXERS and the morons who support and promote them. Meldrum and Bindernagle have gone down the same road as FB/FB and deserve to be banished from the bigfoot community just like they were.

      Delete
    3. The rest of the world thinks bigfoot is a joke because of the lame stream media or they think nothing about it at all. It is a field as they go about there daily jobs and interactions they know nothing about or even give a thought to and are fully unaware of the hoaxes. They only know about Jack Links jerky and may have watched Harry and the Hendersons once and maybe a Butch Kid skit although doubtful.

      My advise to the bigfoot community is to go about your own work and research if you do any and worry about yourself and stay the f*** out of others business.
      Chuck

      Delete
    4. Chuck. I'm doing just that. With some pretty decent results. Hope you're getting the emails. M

      Delete
    5. Mazzini, spot on!!

      Chuck, spot on!!

      Mike, amazing audio!!

      Delete
    6. People don't give the subject any thought because they assume it's all a hoax. And who could blame them? When you have two "bigfoot doctors" giving credence to OBVIOUS fakes why should anyone, the media included, take any of this seriously?

      Delete
    7. I'm not a doctor. But i am enthusiastic about both my Bigfoot research and some recent amateur gynecological studies I'm planning and I say wait and see!

      Delete
    8. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. Send me some photos of those studies

      Delete
  4. MIKE. I just looked and nothing is there. Would like much to see what is new if you have the time to forward to me. Others in this field would be wise to go about it as you do. I do not remember you lashing out at anyone in this field, I do not either. There is one guy, easy to figure out as I never mention his name or read anything about him. He is persona non grada and is best treated in this respect. Oh and MIKE send me that audio, JOE says it is amazing. JOE you can forward to me also and I will give my opinion. Appreciate it guys much. Got to go for now have a great Thanksgiving Day .

    4 59. Very few people outside this field, probably less than 1 or 2 percent have ever heard of Jeff Meldrum, Bindernagle and no one knows anything about Todd Standing. I agree they assume either it is a hoax or most just assume it does not exist for the simple fact they have not looked at it. They know as much about bigfoot as they do brain surgery.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For Sasquatch? Plenty thanks!

      For Standing, Stroud, Meldrum and Bindo? Patience young Padawan!

      Delete
  5. this is a garbage response, so many freaken holes in Todd Neiss points. If its impossible for any one to get as close to what todd S. has done, then its equally impossible for anyone to actually prove bigfoot ever. and Being an make up artist, could be just a woman exploring make products for women. Obviously Todd Neiss doesnt know women. According to him women dont wear make up. As for todds evidence, well at this point its as valid as anyone elses claims. You all could be the better pathological liars. And yes Todd Standing had a previous job, its just as equally reasonable that all of you have some nefariousness reason to perpetrate the commodity that is bigfoot. Garbage arguments, Im sure Dr meldrum and Les know bullshitters, because they have encounter so many for more than a decade. there is something here going on. And instead of actually seen where the rabbit hole end, it seems you guys just dont want todd standing to be the first. Your selfish reasons is a detriment to the science that they are holding onto. You just dont release everything right away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Good point sir!

      It's been addressed that the Standing's had made up things to distance themselves from the Sasquatch research field in order to get employment. This keeps getting ignored... Whilst, it's not like these people pointing their fingers have never put something on their resume's they shouldn't have, right?

      People need to be patient and see what he's got, once all the cards are down and should he have nothing, then people will be right to criticize and look at his photographs with a little more warranted prejudice. If there's a reason why the field isn't taken seriously by the mainstream, it's because of the hate breeding, jealous, backstabbing, intrusive, sniping, dollar grabbers who just want to get there first.

      Delete
    3. Lots of relic hominids running the streets of America right now. Perfectly legal to bag one.

      Delete
    4. Yes but first lets get rid of the weak ones and that includes you. useless docile hominid.

      Delete
    5. 5:37, but, but, Standing's Summit presentation was titled, "Releases It All"! Which of course, was extremely inaccurate, by all accounts, and amounted to grandstanding (lol) and begging for funds. The serious who pay attention already have this guy on mental ignore.

      Delete
  6. First Henry May...and now Todd Neiss...wow, the giants of the bigfoot world and the pride of our nation unite! Meldrum: you are on a sinking ship, there is no escape for you!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who is henry May, and Todd Neiss? What give them the right to judge anyone? what's their background? Have they even ever been in to woods?
      It' sooooo, easy to sit at a computer, get Fat and lazy, and then comment on stuff, they know nothing about!
      These are "Pathetic computer nerds"!

      Delete
  7. okay i tried to read the article until i got to this .".. the odds of seeing a single Sasquatch is extremely low" how about impossible.. nice try

    ReplyDelete
  8. there has never been good video or film to prove bigfoot exist.no body no bigfoot. all else is horse crap. this is a money making business always has been...always will be. its that simply folks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not really that simple. For people (such as Les) who have had REAL life experiences in the wilds - it's not about "making money". It's about trying to explain what they heard or saw. That's a "simple" fact of the matter. There certainly are the other scum hoaxers intermixed...but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Delete
    2. 6:45... There are plenty of reputable scientists who beg to differ about footage, footage of which is waiting to be tested. Should this footage be approached with the same scientific demands that should be expected, and THEN determine that the source is indeed not that of a relict hominid, then your vomit will stand true... Not before.

      "Non body, no Bigfoot" = negative proof fallacy.

      Delete
    3. It's hilarious how you reflexively reference the so called "negative proof fallacy," but then you proudly violate the precept yourself every time you type, "Got monkey suit?"

      Delete
    4. Two different concepts;

      No body in the face of physical & biological evidence; negative proof fallacy.

      Scientific study with premise of organic tissue, endorsed my reputable scientists; needs to be tested.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    5. It is a fallacy anyway you cut it. It just so happens that it is convenient for you in one instance, so you reference it in a giggly adolescent manner, but, when it doesn't suit your preconceived conclusion, you readily ignore it -- doing so doesn't really help your credibility.

      Delete
    6. No... Like I said, two different concepts...

      (Cringe)

      Ok, let's look at it like this then, break it down a little easier. If the subject in the PGF is not an organic living, biological entity, what is it? That's right... If you can't understand the necessity to test science, then that's not my problem, especially if you can't test it to your liking.

      The negative proof fallacy is not the same, as it works both ways of the argument... Very, very basic stuff, have you even taken the time to read what it means? My conclusions are based on you (not you directly, that would be asking a little too much) failing to provide a sufficient means of testing the source in question to a point that it reinforces your premise that it is indeed fake, and therefore a costume. When you're not imitating my vocabulary (I'm happy of course to be educating you on more than one front), you're still not proving any of your points.

      : )

      Delete
    7. Yes, by typing, "Got monkey suit?" every time someone questions the PGF, you are of course arguing that the "negative proof" of someone not being able to replicate the supposed costume proves that the PGF is real. You know that, otherwise you wouldn't make the argument, but for some reason you can never admit you're wrong about anything -- that also tends to undermine your credibility.

      Delete
    8. (Cringe)

      No... Because we universally know monkey suits exist, it should be easy for you to test. You need to show that the premise that the subject in the footage is not what it's being presented as, kiddo. To not counter the claim that the source being presented is organic because you are awaiting a body is a supression of evidence fallacy, because in impartial science, the subject in that footage in line with the physical and biological evidence there is in support, may merely not have reached such a state of conclusive research yet.

      (Sigh)

      Got monke my suit?

      : p

      Delete
    9. Someone could argue that, with the voluminous amount of evidence for the existence of bigfoot (which you regularly cite), then producing a specimen should be easy, and the fact that no one has done so, tends to prove that bigfoot does not exist -- but that would be a "negative proof fallacy" wouldn't it?"

      Arguing that failure to produce a suit (either the original or a good copy), no matter how "easy," is advancing the same "negative proof fallacy." That is my only point -- which seems to be escaping you.

      Delete
    10. Nargh! Because in comparison to other examples of previously considered cryptic primates, we know that the evidence pointing to such a creature merely could be at such a 'close-to-final stage' of tracking them properly; this is the only requirement left for us to do. But tracking the most elusive creature on the planet in some of the most awkward terrain imaginable, in comparison to merely finding a monkey suit technique?

      Nargh, the point was made at 9:11... You must test science. If the antithesis of the subject being organic is that it's a costume, then to not provide a means to reinforce that stance in line with everything we know of fur cloth techniques and costume SFX, means the antithesis cannot stand. The reasons why this is even more the case, is because we have a long chain of necassary sources of evidence to support our premise.

      Got monkey suit?

      : )

      Delete
    11. Do have delusional Welshman.

      Delete
    12. So just so I understand you correctly -- arguing that the absence of a specimen is an example of the "negative proof fallacy," but arguing that the absence of a "monkey suit" is not an example of the "negative proof fallacy"? Got it, you are allowed to carve out your own exceptions to the axiom, but then use the same rule as an absolute defense with no exceptions in other discussions.

      Delete
    13. "No body, no Bigfoot" = negative proof fallacy.

      "Got monkey suit?" = completely sound reasoning and absolutely not a negative proof fallacy.

      Delete
    14. If a body does not exist, then we both are without a means to verify either side of the coin.

      If a monkey suit technique doesn't materielise, then a source with scientifically accumulated data stands. Remember, you've got all the suit examples in the world that show your argument to be true, right? Nobody is asking for the original, just something that comes a little close, eh?

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
    15. For bigfoot's existence, negative proof means nothing and we should ignore it.

      For the PGF, negative proof absolutely establishes that the film shows bigfoot.

      I understand you now -- thank you for clarifying.

      Delete
    16. As stated yesterday your monkey suit argument is rubbish. Its you trying to play within the confines of your game to trump whoever challenges you here. You were sourced yesterday multiple accounts of Hollywood experts stating it was their opinion that it was a monkey suit. Anyone with any common sense knows that if it isnt the same suit on person with nearly the same build, filmed in the same conditions, with the same camera then the results will be different. The basis of your whole argument that it should be easy to recreate this is invalid and somewhat embarrassing for you. Except you allready know this, and thats why you retreat to the monkey suit line when your arguments begin to fall apart. The amount that your words have been turned against you lately is becoming a bit ridiculous. This falls in line with your history of cherry picking facts, changing word definitions around, and excuse making. Its sad really because you definitely know the source well, but are so determined to win an argument at any cost you undermine your own credibility by polluting it with your nonsense. There was one PGF suit. One. Noone knows the makeup of that suit. And it was filmed with a certain actor under specific conditions. However there has to be thousands of Sasquatch to maintain a breeding population, correct? To imply that it should be easier to recreate one suit, as opposed to finding concrete evidence of a creature 7 to 8 feet tall with a population in the thousands is yet another example of you being purposely deceitful to try and win a debate. And don't worry I was more than happy to show once again how you lack integrity. You are starting to make this too easy for me. Lunch is over, have a great holiday weekend.
      ;)

      Delete
    17. "You were sourced yesterday multiple accounts of Hollywood experts stating it was their opinion that it was a monkey suit."
      And on countering that you were given a link that actually puts the context of those experts' comments into reality, I'm still waiting for a response.

      "Anyone with any common sense knows that if it isnt the same suit on person with nearly the same build, filmed in the same conditions, with the same camera then the results will be different."
      That's cool, nobody is asking for anything other than to just show us an example of a costume that incorporates all three elements in question, being gait, texture and proportions.

      "The basis of your whole argument that it should be easy to recreate this is invalid and somewhat embarrassing for you."
      Then why do you maintain that it's 'easily a suit'? If it's 'easily a suit', should be easy to show us something close, right? Your failures are only your own embarrassments kiddo. If my arguments fall apart, please kiddo, show me where they do that. Demanding science be tested is very natural. If there was one PGF suit, it was at least made with fur cloth techniques... This is what people have known for over a hundred years, and there is no costume technique known to any expert that accounts for what you see in the footage from 1967. Specific conditions? Damn straight; direct sunlight... The most unforgiving of lighting conditions that are totally opposed to every single costume example of the day, and guess what? We don't see any suit indicators that you can point to that are even remotely close to what a suit of the day could hide.

      Are there thousands? I really don't know, nobody does, but we did have comparitive gorilla costumes circulating before we had a live mountain gorilla specimen in a zoo too. For a creature 7 to 8 feet tall we have every source of evidence short of knowing how to track them, and just seperate yourself from your own denial a second... Just suppose this creature is real, then it'll undoubtedly be the most elusive creature ever to exist, in line with what ten thousand years of Native Americans, the best trackers in the world, have stated.

      What's easier, supporting your stance that the 'easy suit' is easily replicable? Or tracking the most elusive creature on the planet that's already agknowledged to be the case by those endorsing that? And you still haven't proved any of your points?

      : p

      Delete
    18. 11:01... One desired data in question, the body and lack of, cannot be analysed to attain data either way.

      The data in the PGF, can be analysed and must be tested... How do you test the premise of organic tissue?

      That's right... Come ooooooooon...

      ; )

      Delete
    19. If the PGF is a hoax, can you think of any rational reason why a convincing replica has not been produced?

      Delete
    20. Holmes you've cracked the case! Sound reasoning and logic will prevail! "Got monkey suit" indeed. I fear this poor chap will live out his existence defending a hoax.

      Delete
    21. Weren't you shown to not have the slightest idea of Watson's character purpose?

      Got monkey suit?

      : p

      Delete
    22. I personally think that a convincing replica has not been made because no entertainment venue has made a strong effort to do so. I do think that if cost was no object and some channel thought it would boost ratings and they could make money on it then it could be done. They would have to use the same type of camera, same material available a that time and heck even hire old Heironimus to wear it (even though he's gained a few pounds). It would not be exactly the same but I bet close enough to establish it could be possible. To date no one has made a SERIOUS effort so one cannot honestly say it could not be done. Also a blurry film is very forgiving and the PGF was not crystal clear. I think everyone, believers and disbelievers alike would welcome a serious attempt at doing so.

      Delete
    23. My question was to Joe -- and yes, that is a rational explanation. The point is that, if you're going to continue to rhetorically reference the "negative proof fallacy" in some instances, but ignore it in others, you have a duty to objectively eliminate all other rational explanations for there not being proof. Otherwise, you are reduced to the role of an intellectually inconsistent shill who only wants to win an argument and without any desire to discover the truth. I'm just trying to help you out, have a nice holiday weekend.

      Delete
    24. Negative proof fallacy;

      Body... The data is not present to analyses, therefore the data cannot be assumed to either exist or not exist.

      The footage... The data is present, there is no question of the data existing, and the nature of it has only one means it must be tested in accordance with what premises are drawn from that data. In this case, the premise is organic tissue. Think I just cleared that up for the kids. Sticks and stones may break my bones but scientific theory is your biggest obstacle, not mine.

      "I personally think that a convincing replica has not been made because no entertainment venue has made a strong effort to do so."

      Curious... Ok... Are you aware of how many high budget films have been made with an effort at making monkey costumes? Are you aware of the awards that can be won by accomplishing such? It's a matter of looking at the achievable techniques that's the fundamental aim of any costume expert with the most ridiculous budgets... Nothing comes close to what we see as organic tissue in the PGF. The camera is good for one thing only, height... I can see enough detail, a million others with no agenda can see enough detail, and from that we can comparisons. The materials used in later attempts even predate what was available to a 'broke cowboy looking to make a buck'. The efforts of the BBC, Blevins who took almost ten years... Are you sure you can make the comment that nobody has tried without coming across slightly naive?

      Delete
    25. That the "convincing suit" (and a specimen) are not there to analyze is the whole point of the "negative proof fallacy," so thanks for making my point for me. I'm glad that you now seem to agree with me. No apology is necessary, I was glad to help you clear that up.

      Delete
    26. ... What is... Is a whole database of suit making techniques that can be drawn from, that need to be utilised to determine that the source can be replicated. If it can't, then there is data on that footage that accounts for organic tissue stands.

      Data... If it exists then it can be scientifically tested... I know you thought you were clever... But...

      : )

      Delete
    27. How do you know for a fact that no one has produced a "convincing replica" of the suit in the PGF? Have you personally searched the entire face of earth and confirmed that the "convincing replica" does not exist? Maybe a bigfoot himself created a replica to fool people. I for one cannot rule that out completely.

      Delete
    28. 11:13, 12:07, you forget that Packham/BBC attempted "to recreate, to the inch, the action at Bluff Creek", with the same camera, manned by an amateur operator. The suit used? It was probably created and provided by the maker interviewed in that segment claiming the PGF depicted "a bad suit". His claim of "off the rack" is cagey.

      No doubt Packham, armed with a formidable BBC budget courtesy of millions of British subjects, did his damndest with each element of this attempted recreation: costume, camera, manner of filming, location, weather, time of day, all of it.

      His "to the inch" job we know resulted in a peculiar Strutting Orange Stick Man, followed by Packham chokingly concluding that he's not only debunked the PGF, but "proven" that bigfoot does not exist.

      It's a sceptic extremist's ultimate fantasy. They are giddy with Packhamitis.

      Anyway, there you are; turn to Packham and the BBC; they have already done it for you, they have already done what you have asked. You can see the result.

      If the PGF shows "a bad suit", why did the resident arse-aching poster boy for JREF delusion finally collapse in on himself and declare "the Packham bigfoot was intentionally poor in order to keep the bigfoot gravy train rollin'"? If the PGF depicts "a bad suit", then a comparably bad suit, combined with the same camera and amateur operator, will convincingly mirror the PGF. But Packham flunked vigorously.

      As you see, Packham embarrassed the BBC and his reputation with his cheesy PGF redux, which only induces jeers and howling hilarity.

      "A bad suit"? OK then, let's see all of yer bad suits and let's get this PGF debunked!!!! Bad suits are real easy to replicate. Do it then.

      Delete
    29. I understand what you are trying to say Joe however to my knowledge only weak attempts have been made to duplicate the PGF exclusively. The films you speak of were made for entertainment value and the producers had free reign to portray Bigfoot in any way they wanted. I grant you I don't come or comment here often but I try to stay up with things going on concerning Bigfoot so I am not totally naïve. I freely admit I used to believe however in the past 5 years or so have changed my mind and now I have doubts. The PGF to me was the strongest piece of evidence and if it COULD be replicated just enough to show it would be possible than that would certainly close the door on any belief I have remaining. I truly think a SERIOUS attempt would (or should) be welcome by both sides but I have not seen one yet.

      By the way Joe I had a conversation about giant skeletons with you here awhile back. You may be interested to know (or perhaps you already do) that there is a program that deals with that exact subject over here on the history channel called Searching For Giants. They have found nothing that convinces me yet however I still watch. I still don't buy the argument that the Smithsonian is hiding giant skeletons from the public but believe what you will.

      Delete
    30. I.e., Packham's claim of "off the rack", is cagey, Packham is cagey in making that remark. Doubtful, not believable, avoiding scrutiny, avoiding being questioned on the costume he used. Packham won't reveal the source of the costume. Cagey.

      Delete
    31. Curious, you are a very nice person and obviously not an idiot and I respect your opinions sir.

      No offense intended.

      Delete
    32. Another handy comparison is Andre the Giant playing bigfoot in 6 Mil Man circa 1975. That was a top-rated programme, so the budget would have been amongst the highest for a Hollywood TV series from that time. Not that they tried to duplicate Patty, but you can see the short-armed buttless wonder which even the truly gigantic Andre appeared to be in that costume. No doubt the makers of the costume consulted the PGF and whatever else they could as a basis for their creation.

      Delete
    33. Lesson For the Day I find it hard to believe that attempt was the best that could be accomplished. Even to my untrained eyes the costume they used was not even close to looking what was in the PGF. I also recall reading that the BBC was disappointed with Packman's attempt but that should not close the door on another try. I would welcome another more professional attempt - if it obviously fails like Packham's than perhaps my faith could be restored.

      Delete
    34. They were probably disappointed due to the finances such a mainstream presenter was given to work with.

      Delete
    35. Joe F, question? if ya don't mind, with ALL the hoopla/analysis regarding standings video/photos of this/these Bigfoot that Standings has taken,do you at this point in time think they are the real deal or faked? Authentic of faked? and please no in between answer,just your honest opinion.........

      Delete
    36. I can't answer simply yes or no, because my thoughts towards tbe photogpraphs are not that simple. I have stated from day one... That I have doubts as to the authenticity of the photographs. But, I am not going to conclude they are fake until someone shows me conclusive evidence to show me they're fake... Because they COULD be real; this is in line with Doug Hudson (who couldn't rule them out and listed the very best of SFX techniques of Hollywood, realistic?) who is a special effects expert, who agrees with Les Stroud.

      Delete
  9. The one photo of sasquatch Todd has looks very fake in my opinion. There is another that looks actually quite "real" if you will.

    Does one "fake looking" squatch cancel things out..? I think it should.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No because according to the people here its o.k. to lie to people as long as stop lying and produce actual evidence at some point. Which he hasn't done by the way. So he probably faked the one face, you'll just have to take his word that he hasn't faked the rest of it.

      Delete
  10. If they are serious on the existence of Bigfoot then pull your resources and capture one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey Gatekeeper! You made a good point! But I'd bet 99.9% of "Big foot Researchers" are at home, and none will go "Bigfooting" until the nice weather of the spring!

      John W. Jones jest got back from a 4 week expedition, with his team. They are very tired and exhausted. They range in age from 59 years old to 83!
      Now that it snowing, in their area, they are going back out! The Winter months, with snow on the ground, makes an "Excellent time" to look for Big foot activity. But, like I said before, many "Researchers" stay home, waiting for the nice weather. They are "Weekend hobbist Big footers.
      According to John W. Jones, the "Summer months" are the "worst time" to be looking!
      In his books,,John and hi team detail all their innovative methods and experiences!

      Delete
    2. Good to hear about John! Tell him I'm wishing him a great Thanksgiving and hope he is well.

      Delete
    3. I'm out every weekend reguardless of the weather....Just got some snow..I'll be out thanksgiving morning!

      Delete
    4. Screw that it's cold outside

      Delete
    5. Where may one purchase these books?

      Why do John Joke and Mike Drunk refuse to provide any evidence of their claims?

      Because it is all make believe role play. You people are degenerates.

      Delete
    6. Hey Anon 12:56: John and Mike are waaaaay to smart, to let dummies like you and other idiots on this site examine or analyse any Photo or video evidence.
      Mike some time back, show some pics of a Big foot, and got his head handed to him!

      No matter who it is, anyone that's "dumb enough' to show a Video or photo of a Big foot will be attacked, ridiculed, and be called a "Hoaxer", not matter how clear or good it is.
      John's books are in the final legal review and should be released on Amazon by Christmas.

      Have a great Thanksgiving everyone! Chick and Eva watch what you eat!

      Delete
  11. I was at the conference on Saturday night and met Standing.
    Here's a link:
    http://www.phantomsandmonsters.com/2014/11/sasquatch-summit-synopsis.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don't worry, Meldrum will jump ship.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Another attempt at discrediting Todd. Those five points are no way proving that he hoaxed anything. Give it up already!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Todd discredits himself with his lunacy.

      Delete
    2. No more so those scurrying around on a hate campaign not knowing what evidence is due to be presented.

      Delete
    3. Guarantee it's nothing groundbreaking. Toddy is hopelessly derivative. The guys he stole his Alberta site from, now I'm watching them, among others.

      Delete
    4. Your 'guarantees' are all very well & done... I'll wait and see what he's got before I scritinize him.

      Delete
  14. Henry May forgets that Adrian Erickson did all of the videographic accomplishments that Henry claims is a mathematical impossibility. Henry is unqualified to go after Todd Standing and has no degree in mathematics, or anything else that the public is aware of. Henry is apparently unaware that the Sasquatch in Canada are more likely to show themselves, than in most of the U.S. Consequently, Todd's apparent success is most likely due to location and less likely due to any skills that he may have acquired. Henry May has never seen a Sasquatch, which does nothing to may him qualified to go after Todd Standing's 3 face photos. The Sasquatch community has no shortage of people who can come up with a reason to disqualify anything as evidence. Henry would do well to just chill out and forget about trying to convince Meldrum to abandon his Todd Standing connection. After all, Standing has apparently been the only person to come close to bringing Meldrum to a site where he could see a Sasquatch. Which is an accomplishment that Henry May cannot do, which may have something to do with his apparent jealousy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Isn't a makeup artist required for anyone on camera? It's a valid position, not something that would take away from the credibility of anyone. My thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  16. LOL. Canadian bigfeets are more likely to show themselves? That sounds like subjective butt pull information.

    Henry May claims two sightings if I recall correctly. One of them being a white sasquatch near a house somewhere in the southern US I think..

    ReplyDelete
  17. 8:48, hi Todd! You don't have any particular skill at leading anyone to see a BF. Matt M has been doing group camp outs for lotsa years, many other groups are doing them also. They're in people's backyards for Pete's sake. Get over yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Any equation that involves something that doesn't exist is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What all of the people complaining about Meldrum's latest money-grab is that he does not give one jar of poop about what the bigfoot community thinks of him now.

    He only cares about what the world of film and documentary makers and producers thinks about him who can consistently pay his fees. Isn't it obvious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I tend to agree. He is getting more and more blatant with his con job. He doesn't seem to care much what the footers say or do now. After all, the sheep don't tell the shepherd what to do, now do they?

      Delete
    2. I wouldn't say he doesn't care at all. The fact that he put up his "defense" must mean something.

      The fact that he was somewhat perturbed and defensive about it says something as well.

      Delete
    3. What Meldrum doesn't care about, is the soap opera and the embarrassing dollar race side of the field... He's way more preoccupied with getting the attention of some of the best in relevant scientific fields, and good at it. If Standing turns out to have physical evidence to support what Meldrum experienced, then what excuses would you all have then I wonder?

      The only con in this topic is perpetuated by those shamefully vomiting an angle that has more holes in it than anything their double standards can handle, eh Crimefighter?

      Delete
    4. If Rick Dyer shot a Bigfoot (and actually proved it) it would be highly ironic. If Standing turned out to have the goods this time, a lot of people would be surprised. Either way, it would seem remote given their histories. Regardless, I think people would be happy in the end. That doesn't excuse prior behavior.

      After Ketchum, I can see why many Bigfooters detest anyone making huge claims (especially scientific based) that gives media attention that makes them look even worse.

      Delete
    5. You are correct. Should Standing fail to deliver, then he'd have warranted all the scrutiny of any past endeavours.

      Delete
  20. One thing you got to admit about Meldrum, he just loves looking at bigfoot butts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps more so bigfooters' butts in conference seats. Collect speaking fees and sell stuff.

      Delete
  21. One thing that no one has ever mentioned is that Meldrum is a Mormon, which is a moron with an extra 'm' in it. These people believe that the Angel, Macaroni, came down in a UFO and gave Joseph Smith the Book of Mormon. Smith proceeded to found the church based upon child rape and murder as two of its tenants. Now this, in and of itself, would be reason for me to doubt anyone's credibility.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mormon's are way off, but child rape, murder, and UFO's I'm not aware of??
      He claimed an angel brought him the plates, but didn't hear about a UFO?

      Delete
    2. I wonder what category your born-into religious practices, we should determine of you?

      "A superficial consideration of the Book of Mormon account has led to misconceptions ... that all Native Americans are Lehi's direct descendants. ...The notion has arisen that modern DNA research will either vindicate or refute the Book of Mormon."

      One theory he gives is that the current native american population is indeed from Bering Strait migrations, but not migrations of 10,000 years ago, rather from recent migrations. He quotes: Michael Crawford, from the Department... In this statement perhaps Meldrum is finding evidence that genetic drift or dilution ocurred for Lehi's descendants because of the influx of Siberian immigrants through modern times."

      Some important questions being attempted at answering here, and though I'm the least religious person you'll meet, his scientific background on evolutionary bipedalism stands as one of the most comprehensive academic sources regarding it in the world.

      11:33... Are you accusing Meldrum of being affiliated with child rape and murder?

      Delete
    3. That's right 11:33... You're just a little coward that has to say apauling things about people's characters because you are too stupid to look at both the facts, or come up with anything that remotely challenges their work that quite clearly resorts you down to level of your insignificant existence to stoop so low.

      Someone would be well within their rights to ask you of your details for making such an accusation.

      Sicko.

      Delete
    4. Agreed. You can never trust a mormon. They are the lowest of the low. They do love their child rape and that is a fact.

      Delete
  22. "Do I speak for the Bigfoot Community?"

    One paragraph earlier:

    "We, the Bigfoot Community..."

    ReplyDelete
  23. The 'big foot community" is full of vengeful,devious, jealous, envious
    liers, conmen, bull shitters, phonies, hoaxers! is there anything I missed?

    When the day comes, when finally someone brings in a Big foot body, 90% of the "Big foot community" will commit suicide!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Who would agree that the Bigfoot community IS full of charlatans? and it is getting worse and worse, plain and simple.......

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bigfoot isn't real but the bank account of Matt Moneymaker would be real big. He says he has been studying bigfoot for 25 years but has absolutely no proof. Who the fuck is that bad at there job and gets rich from it. Fucking lucky cunt has fooled the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not the world, just the gullible and the stupid.

      Delete
    2. Hey, cut Todd some slack. He just wants to get rich.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?