Monday, May 1, 2017

Todd Standing Interviews Dr. Jeff Meldrum About His Bigfoot Encounters


Todd Standing discusses "Sylvanic" with Dr. Jeff Meldrum, and the bigfoot encounters he has had.

48 comments:

  1. I ate some bugs, I ate some grass. I used my hand to wipe my tears.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't need to see this garbage on my birthday !
    Matt, why do you dis me on my birthday ?
    It's my party and I'm going to draw a small penis on the photo of hoaxer standing and an even smaller on on the photo of thief Meldrum !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

      I swear, once you get the intricacies and back stories of BigfootEvidence.blogspot.com, it is very likely the funniest thing on the planet with the greatest trolls in the solar system. "Bearman with birdman on head....KABOOM!" ROFL LMFAO LOL LOL LOL Literally pissing my pants laughing

      Delete
    2. Would be even funnier if you proved me wrong right!
      Guess who's ROFL

      Delete
    3. Once again epic failure! An SFX expert has not Studied these creatures! Is he going to tell us that Standing has fake hair or real hair on the mask???
      You're such an idiot! If Munns or yourself ever took one pic of a BIGFOOT, we would not be having this conversation! You both would INSTANTLY know its beyond fake, they look nothing like that, not even close! The clarity of the pic is the first huge red flag!
      I'm at least 10-15 years ahead of every researcher, this is a fact! And also why I can tell who the disinformation idiots are!

      Delete
    4. And what do YOU have as images to compare to Standing's images? Images of foliage with drawings on? How can you claim to know what "Bigfoot" look like based on your photos, there's nothing in them? Regardless of anyone's stance on what Standing's images are... Only a troll would assert your images are anything but a joke, and if you listen to Meldrum in that interview, Munns IS due to study them.

      I'm starting to think you're a troll, trying to see who you can reel in. It's fitting now that nobody has been reeled in, that you're on the attack on people you've always trolled.

      Isn't that right?

      Delete
    5. Where's the footage of Standing going in, and filming them?? He just showed pics, NO FOOTAGE!! This is hoaxing! But you don't require any proof, as long as it looks like what you think one should look lime, well that's enough proof for you! And when proof is shown ( by me) you try and straw man me, without any proof that I'm wrong. That is trolling, lazy, uneducated, immature, and pathetic!

      Delete
    6. I'm not about to start getting into whether Standing is hoaxing or not. The point is, you have nothing of this proof that you demand others present. You're ******* delusional.

      Delete
  3. This is why nobody takes Jeff seriously any more. We actually feel a little sorry for him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By associating with Fraud Standing, Dr. Meldrum is not doing himself any favors.

      Does Meldrum actually believe Fraud Standing, or is Meldrum merely being interviewed by Fraud?

      If Meldrum believes that there is any credence to Fraud Standing's BS, then yes, Meldrum has lost credibility.

      Delete
  4. I'd love a bigfoot encounter and a big fat hairy one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Who hoaxes the most, 24/7 Flesh & Blood Bigfoot believers, or Paranormal Knowers?

    Answer: Hands down the 24/7 F&B'ers because they are so frustrated that they can't get any pictures to prove that they are real, that they then resort to hoaxing, like Todd Standing. The paranormal knowers on the other hand, know that the Bigfoot are invisible most of the time and are not going to spend a lot of time into trying to get a photo of something that is not interested in having it's photo taken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people who can't get proof, get frustrated, and hoax, 100% correct!
      I spent 10 years at it, going out every weekend, and only had 4 pics.
      When i started going out everyday, that's when it all came together, 1,700 pics in the last 3 years!

      Meldrum and Standing only have credibility with the naive, non researcher, who wants to believe, but has no clue, just like them!
      They should be both put in jail!

      Delete
    2. you are correct Dr, the more experience you got at hoaxing the better you became
      keep it up Jr Standing !

      Delete
    3. Right, Doc? You did not start getting cryptoid penises on camera until you went out everyday.

      Delete
    4. if there are any bigfoot penises to film by golly I'm the one who's gonna do it. all you douchebags can laugh but I get results every single day and it took years of doing this til I became woke
      hard work = sucess
      1,700 pics later I am still the best at it !
      Kaboom !

      Delete
  6. Todd has little Standing in the bigfoot community

    ReplyDelete
  7. Todd Standing is in the Bigfoot Hoaxer Hall of Shame:

    http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/hall-of-shame.html

    Standing should not be given any credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  8. you must freeze the stool as soon as you collect it, only pick up warm or steaming stool samples and run right home and put them in your freezer

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Todd's photos are very suspect but one thing that has to be taken into account is the cost of the make up/masks that would be required for these hoaxes,we're talking in upwards of 3 grand per.Can Todd afford to piss away money like that?,highly unlikely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No matter what was spent, they're as fake as they get!

      Delete
    2. Bill Munns is due to analyse Standing's "masks" and offer his opinion.

      Watch this space.

      Delete
    3. Another useless opinion Iktomi! If Munns did actual field research, he would have called Standings pics fake long ago! What is Munns comparing it to, Patty?

      Delete
    4. Munns' area of expertise is SFX. He's not expected to conduct field research. And even if he did, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't insult people's intelligence by providing scribbles on images of brush as "proof".

      Delete
    5. He is expected to do field research if he's going to give an honest opinion!
      You insult your own supposed intelligence by your "Brush" comment. You clueless, or passing more disinformation Iktomi? I'll give you a clue....BOTH!

      Delete
    6. Um, no he's not. Like a geneticist studies certain samples for genetic data, like a field biologist studies sign of various creatures in their habitats... An SFX expert offers expertise on SFX. They all have their different areas of expertise that are relevant to their academic backgrounds, respectively. Anyone with a brain would find an SFX expert passing his opinion on wildlife biology out of his depth, and unqualified to do so.

      Delete
    7. If you've never taken a picture of a Bigfoot, HOW THE HECK CAN YOU OFFER AN OPINION OF SOMEONE ELSE, WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE A PICTURE OF ONE????????????????????????????????
      PLEASE ANWER THE QUESTION, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE SO STUPID!

      Delete
    8. YOU'RE IN THE SAME CATEGORY! YOU NEVER, EVER, EVER, TOOK A SINGLE PIC, AND ARE CLUELESS ABOUT THEM. YOU CAN'T OFFER ANY OPINION WHATSOEVER, BECAUSE YOU'RE DEAD WRONG!

      Delete
    9. So how did you come to the conclusion that Patty was genuine prior to you allegedly photographing Bigfoot? By your logic, only the people who have photographed a "Bigfoot", but a handful on the planet, are allowed to pass judgement. You don't have any detail in your photos that proves you have that right, let alone call the shots. We have your mere word that you've seen one, something that suddenly came to the fray only when you were challenged months after your photos were pushed on people, and taking into consideration that you think you're photographing "birdmen", that's (cough, cough) only a little bit suspect?

      Once you seemingly have detail of biological tissue in your photos, maybe one day you can acquire the services of an SFX expert to rule out hoaxing... And test the source in question to the demands of science. Until then, you're just an angry troll that runs around the internet attacking people because they don't shower you with attention for something that can't even get article attention on this cesspit of a blog for.

      Delete
    10. Shower me with attention, man you are a special kind of stupid! All this clueless empty talk again! Keep putting your for in your mouth for!
      How can an SFX expert tell anything about BIGFOOT??? THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROOF TO COMPARE IT TO!!
      Useless opinion, just like everything you say.

      Delete
    11. Ok, I'll hold your hand through this one last time, before I leave you try and attain some significance from someone else...

      An SFX expert would be able to tell you if the subject is a costume. For example, if the subject's "hair" is subject to known fur cloth techniques for the era of SFX, or to any known era. A plastic surgeon, would then be able to apply his/her expertise to pointing out key anatomical features that indicate genuine biological tissue. Both experts in their respected fields would be able to draw upon their knowledge to at least determine if the subject is either biological, or not. Both have been applied to the PGF, for example.

      By your logic, even if your drawings were of real subjects, they couldn't be considered genuine because you have nothing to compare them to. You're not an expert in any relevant fields to this subject.

      Adios, troll!

      Delete
    12. "Once you seemingly have detail of biological tissue in your photos, maybe one day you can acquire the services of an SFX expert to rule out hoaxing"
      What is Munns going to tell if the Hair on Standings pics is real or fake????? What the heck good is that, IT'S STILL A TOTAL FAKE!
      If you or Munns had any clue about these creatures, Standings pics wouldn't even be a question! I was uncertain what he had, until I RESEARCHED! I was uncertain about Patty, UNTIL I RESEARCHED! Sure, i can have an opinion, and anyone can, BUT, it matters that it's not an opinion, but rather, FACTUAL!
      You look at Bigfoot in a pragmatic way, meaning, you deal with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than factual considerations. Which is semi ok, at least you're not a Skeptic, but you're honestly not being honest with yourself about my evidence. It is fact.

      Delete
    13. Because he's an expert at things like fur cloth techniques. He can tell you if the subject has manufactured hair, or not. It's as basic to understand as it is very fundamental to the whole argument.

      How can you prove that your opinion is factual, because you say so? Where is the evidence that you know what you're talking about? Your "birdman" photos that need to be drawn? Is that pragmatic, sensible or realistic? Can you name me one biologist that would find that to be the case? It's hard for me to take you seriously, it's why I don't often respond to you. I used to have your back until you started getting delusional, and attacking people who didn't think your birdman photos held any stock.

      I'm starting to think I was being trolled.

      Delete
    14. How does Putting dots where there eyes are negate the evidence? It doesn't Mr. Straw man!
      If you're not accustomed to looking at how they camo themselves, you would never find them in my pics. I outline them for nine researchers like yourself.
      I don't have ONE Birdman pic, but severAl! You can get a pic of a bush that looks like a Birdman too, right Ikdummy!
      One year, and you will have NOTHING that looks lime a BIGFOOT, Dogma, Cayman, Birdman, you name it! It will be another EPIC FAILURE, and I will be here, May 3rd, 2018, asking where your proof is!
      Good luck DOUCHEBAG! A whole year of making you look stupid, CAN'T WAIT!

      Delete
    15. It simply means that the "eyes" are utterly subjective to whatever delusion of the beholder. I am a total advocate for the manner in which these subjects are able to conceal themselves, but what you're pushing on people is silly, DS. The one decent photo you have is of the subject that appears to be growling... But I couldn't possibly argue that it's of a genuine subject to a biologist. What I can do is simply trust you that it is what it appears to be, and did so for a long time (still do), before you went bat **** crazy and started chasing people around, heckling them with your delusions.

      Delete
  11. You know Todd Standing is hoaxing as he only gets face shots, while Doctor Squatch (the #1 Bigfoot and Cryptid researcher) get uncut penises and testicles of all shapes and sizes. Todd, lets see some Sasqcocks before you hoax again = Common Sense

    #KABOOM

    ReplyDelete
  12. I really like Meldrum but I'm also disappointed that he's joined with Standing who in my opinion is a hoaxer from what I've seen of his videos I am not bloody impressed at all.
    They seem like some puppet creations that are made to blink like the kind Jim Henson used to make


    Joe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the issue I have, is with the blink. To me, they look like they could be real. The fact that they're so still doesn't bother me, as this has been reported many times by eyewitnesses. It's just that sodding blink. Utah Sasquatch suggested it might have been achieved in photoshop, when you drag one part of the still image.

      Delete
    2. If any of the video has been altered than sadly I have to discredit it. From the start i had issues with standing's video but meldrum must have a gut sense of something being real or I don't think a person of his learned knowledge would be fooled that easily or at least I hope not. if there was more to the video like movement which would be hard to do in any program I'd be more inclined to believe it

      Joe

      Delete
    3. It's not just the blink. There are signs of image compositing and other editing shenanigans in the blinky video.

      And there's different levels of stillness. All animals, even when sitting "perfectly still" make tiny unconscious movements in the skin as pili muscles etc. react automatically to air currents, temperature changes, blood pulsing, and even just noise in the nerves. So even when "sitting still", no mammal is ever truly still.

      But Todd Standing's puppets are.

      Fredo Durand and Bill Freeman have developed video filters that magnify such small, imperceptible movements, making them visible. Now I'm an anatomist and anthropologist by trade, so I don't presume to understand how their computer wizardry works, but I know it does. I've seen the results.

      But their filters don't work on Blinky. There's no micro motion there to magnify. Blinky really is perfectly still in a way that no mammal could ever achieve, but that puppets and mannequins and rocks can.

      I accept that bigfoots are capable of standing very still. I've observed that behavior in other primates.

      But not that still.

      Blinky is not alive. Blinky is a puppet.

      But never mind blinky. He's just Puppet v2.0. Look at Standings previous hoaxing efforts like the velour inuit thing that he tried to pass off as bigfoot first. How anyone could think that flocked mannequin is an actual bigfoot is completely beyond me. Even Rick Dyer did better than that.

      No, Todd Standing is a bad hoaxer, and once a hoaxer, always a hoaxer. That means he needs to come up with something really indisputable if he wants to redeem himself. He needs to produce a body. But all he delivers are bluster and more puppet pictures. surely if he's capable of taking video that clearly, he would be able to collect a specimen. But he can't.

      Because he's a liar and a fraud.

      Delete
    4. Some very valid points and I'll maintain I have a major issue with "blinky", but there is some highly relevant information to consider...

      1. There is misinformation as to some of the images that are circulating that are allegedly of Standing's subjects. Utah Sasquatch highlights it here;
      https://youtu.be/XOivR9bohww
      ... The images were actually assembled by people being critical of his images, to "fill in the blanks" so to speak, around the foliage that was covering one of the subject's face. And as a result, had given one of them a far more synthetic appearance.

      2. The following video is an interview with Doug Hudson, an SFX expert, who cites the most expensive, and largely unrealistic of Hollywood methods needed to achieve Standing's images;
      https://youtu.be/4GAP_oB8OsU

      3. Apart for the darker subjects such as "blinky", there WAS a video on YouTube (I've just spent the last half hour looking for it and couldn't find it) that showed in slow motion one of the subjects' pupils moving several times and another with its mouth opening.

      I find this to all be very relevant information, and if we are to practice genuine scepticism, must be considered going forward. I'll try again later to source that video. I for one will be very interested to see what Bill Munns has to say about his images.

      Peace.

      Delete
    5. I have no doubt there's some misinformation coming from some of Todd Standing's detractors, but that doesn't mean every criticism of Todd Standing is baseless, nor does it in any way validate Standing's bunkum.

      I don't now enough about video compositing to say for myself if the blinky video is computer edited, but the explanations I've seen so far make sense. Especially the ones that point out the video has multiple moving planes of focus, which is apparently impossible in a single shot without very expensive camera lenses designed for the purpose. But it's very easy to accomplish, even accidentally, if you're generating a single image from multiple camera shots.

      It's possible that blinky might have mobile eyes or a mobile mouth, though not from what I've seen, but that's not all that hard to achieve in a puppet. What I'm talking about, however, are the tiny, involuntary movements in the skin and hair follicles that all mammals make but that Todd Standing's puppets don't.

      Here's a youtube video that shows some examples of these types of micromotions to demonstrate a motion magnification method. We're not interested in the motion magnification system here, but rather in the motions being magnified, especially the pulsing ulnar artery.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9ASH8IBJ2U

      One of my grad students used this motion magnification software (or one like it) on the blinky video and showed that apart from the blink (or should that be wink?), blinky is as static as a stone.

      That is one of the reasons why blinky's blink looks so wrong, though by no means all of them.

      Without enhancement we are not consciously aware of these micro motions, but on some level we do perceive them because their absence is one of the factors in the so-called "uncanny valley" reaction we have to things like human simulating robots and dolls. The more "real" something looks, the more "wrong" it seems.

      We also perceive this uncanny valley sense in blinky and it hits us the moment the puppet blinks. Before that our brains interpret blinky as a still image, even with the shaky camera work. As soon as that eyebrow drops, though, we are forced to reinterpret what we are seeing as a moving entity, at which point we become aware subconsciously that the blink was the only motion present, and that makes it look wrong and puppetish.

      The fact that blinky "blinks" with its supraorbital instead of an eyelid doesn't help it either.

      And there's still the issue of blinky being Todd Standing's second (or possibly third - I forget) puppet. His previous hoaxes are so obvious that even if he were to achieve Stan Winston level verisimilitude, which blinky is not, it would still be dubious and useless. Once a hoaxer, always a hoaxer.

      Todd Standing needs to shut up and produce a body. He, himself has admitted this. If he can get close enough to take a clear video of bigfoot, then he can get close enough to take a clear shot with a rifle.

      So why hasn't he?

      Because he's all lies.

      And that's why Jeff's dealings with Todd Standing are so baffling and disturbing. He really should know better.

      Delete
    6. That's odd. My reply keeps disappearing. I've never seen the forums act that way. Maybe it doesn't like my video link.

      Delete
    7. Try and republish the comment without so many paragraphs. For some reason, if there's too many paragraphs in a comment, the comment is taken down (I think to stop people spamming). I managed to take a screenshot of your comment before it gets reduced, so please republish is as it's an interesting read and much appreciated.

      Delete
  13. Fraud Standing's bigfoot BS is as fake as a $3 bill.

    Standing should be given zero credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kawasaki:
    Joint: 59071-7004
    O-Ring: 670D2016

    ReplyDelete