Not Everyone Agrees on Todd Standing


Let's face it. Todd Standing's Sylvanic bigfoot videos are a point of controversy. While they haven't been in the news lately, the debate has still managed to forge ahead.

Daniel Falconer and Phil Poling took the time to apply their own skill sets and expertise, and co-authored the paper "A Critical Examination of the Todd Standing Sylvanic Bigfoot Videos" which can be viewed here. 

The following is an evaluation of that critical analysis conducted by bigfooter Daniel Dover, in which Dover doesn't exactly see "eye to eye" with Falconer and Poling's conclusions.

Follow Up: Evaluation of the Critical Examination of Todd Standing Bigfoot Videos

This is a follow up evaluation written by Daniel Dover in response to the paper, co-authored by Daniel Falconer and Phil Poling, "A Critical Examination of the Todd Standing Sylvanic Bigfoot Videos" which was published here.

Daniel Falconer is a professional special effects and design artist who has worked on such films as Peter Jackson's "King Kong" and the "Lord of the Rings" franchise. You can view his IMDB bio by clicking here.

His co-author on the paper, Phil Poling, is a retired police detective, and is well known for his video analysis and photography expertise. You can view his YouTube channel, ParaBreakdown, by clicking here.

Regardless of their professional backgrounds or expertise, still not everyone agrees with their published analysis of the Sylvanic Bigfoot videos produced by Todd Standing. One such individual is Daniel Dover, who wrote his own paper in which he evaluates the Falconer/Poling paper.

Mr. Dover contacted me recently asking if I would be willing to post his evaluation here, in which I agreed to do so. I encourage those interested to read both papers and form their own opinions/conclusions, without letting personal opinions of the individuals to cloud their assessments. All individuals involved spent a lot of time to write their papers, conduct their own studies of the videos in question, and deserve an equal opportunity to present their case.

For all links, including a link to Mr. Dover's full evaluation, please click here. 


Comments

  1. folk seein tham bigfoots heers shure have

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read half of this already and it's excellent. Mr Dover has very much put together what was needed.

      Rush must be pleased with this.

      Delete
    2. Gullibility is no laughing matter

      Delete
    3. Neither are 'critiques' based on subjective assumptions and inaccurate data.

      The facial proportions are something that Dover concurs is an area worthy of further investigation. I have to admit this was something that did make me think (the space between the nose and upper lip of the darker subjects), but we have so little comparitive sources to go by that we can't account for possible variation.

      This is a great bit of work, everyone should read it.

      Delete
    4. zero bigfoots anywhere ever

      Delete
    5. As verified by uneducated, unimportant, anonymous you.

      Plenty found, none caught.

      Delete
    6. By anyone, ever. That's the point. You don't grasp simple concepts easily do you?

      Delete
    7. You've been posted imumerable comments with scientists of all walks who say you don't know what you're talking about.

      Slow learner aren't you?

      : p

      Delete
    8. you were already challenged on this.

      when asked for a single quote from a scientist where they state that bigfoot is a real creature, you completely failed to provide that quote.

      your "scientists say otherwise" dead horse is simply a non starter

      Delete
    9. No I wasn't challenged sonny... You had to be explained to the relevance of editorial boards, forewords in books, etc.

      Pretty funny stuff. Keep up the good work though! Your theory group needs plenty of loopy denialists like you ya know.

      ; )

      Delete
    10. again no quote I see

      too easy

      Delete
    11. Yeah... Like no MELDRUM quotes, remember? Ha ha ha ha!!!

      Delete
    12. Tard on you crazy diamond...

      Delete
    13. Plenty of footers want to believe that Standing is the real deal. Those pictures must prove the existence of BF right

      Wrong. Even Standing's allies won't cite these works alongside the PGF. They have been proven to be Photoshoped fakes.

      Standing may have silver tongued poor Rush, Stroud and Meldrum but he is a hoaxer whose output cannot be trusted.

      He may be vainly attempting to reinvent himself as a true researcher but I'll pass thanks. I'm more interested in the guys who don't snap Ewoks at close range.

      MMG

      Delete
    14. Or guys who shoot first and identify later

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. superfriends are done that schtick got old a month ago

      Delete



    2. -------------------S.U.P.E.R.F.R.I.E.N.D.S!!!!--------------------

      Delete
    3. The Superfriends are a Bunch
      Goofy Idiots!!!

      Delete
    4. SUPERTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    5. LMAO! Haters gonna hate. Lookin like a bunch of dirty jars of poo they do!

      Delete
    6. Now that's a statement of the power of the supershmucks
      ..pathetic isn't it

      Delete
    7. 4:19 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!it's me uno!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    8. Yes, thats a fake Uno.....

      Delete
    9. 4:23 has ridden one too many eels!

      Delete
    10. retarded folks^...that is someone saying that 4:19 is uno. just like 4:23 is also...as you can tell by the 6000 !!! she uses on every post...4:35 is joe...4:30 50/50 big gay jon/homo bob

      Delete
  3. Who wrote this stupid article? Sean Matt someone were you drunk high? It doesn't even make any sense Todd was the one that came out and told everybody it was a hoax months ago do you keep up?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What, news here? Where did you get that info?

      Delete
    2. From Todd standing and less stroud on their podcast. It's not even up for debate he said it like three times. Just ask Todd or les. They are both relatively easy to get a hold of

      Delete
    3. Are you referring to the photoshopped images?

      Delete
    4. Are you talking about the Bigfoot north shows with standing and meldrum? I've seen them and there was no admission of hoaxing on any of them.

      Delete
    5. That's what I thought? if he's referring to the image up top, Todd has stated it was photoshopped by a fan, but as far as confessing to a hoax, then that's simply not happened.

      Delete
    6. Two or three times Todd standing have said yes those photos are actually not real foots.

      Delete
    7. 1:11 is correct go ahead and ask Todd this is not new news. Todd is a admitted hoaxer.

      Delete
    8. ^ Who cares if he has admitted it or not nobody ever thought they were real

      Delete
    9. Yes it's true I have been less than honest with the evidence that I presented in the past in regards to some photos~Todd

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. That's too funny :) You made me laugh. Anonymous signs his sentence Todd. The hoaxer who cried hoax. I found a quote:

      The video 5 Subject/Todd is really Elvis in special effects and an admitted hoaxer - Anonymous

      Delete
  4. Does anyone other than rushfer think these are real?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The guy that made them Todd said that they're fake so I hope that nobody would believe differently

      Delete
  5. good ole matt throwing his bff poling a bone on this one ..trying to get him some views lol. sorry matt, paratoilet is a sinking ship seems people got tired of the same old its all cgi...unless my friends and fellow tazertards filmed it..then its 100% real

    ReplyDelete
  6. If Bill is out to make money, he's doing a terrible job at it. Outside of the BFF, When Roger Met Patty has had the impact of a wet noodle.



    Seriously, what is happening in Bigfootery when his announcement of his book release gets three comments on Facebook. Literally, outside of this thread I started, there is next to no discussion about it whatsoever. Never mind amongst biologists, primatologists...



    Only BFF members are talking about the book and there's what, maybe 20 of us at the most regularly talking about it?



    Let's do some numbers with the hypothetical accusation Bill could be out for money with his book. WIth all this interest people talk about in Bigfoot, Bill's book page on Facebook has only managed to get 161 likes and only three comments when it came out. Let's say every one of those 161 people by not the Kindle version but the paperback version which is listed at about $20 ($22.47 CDN, $20.07 USD). $20 x 161 makes $3220. Let's say Bill splits the take 50/50 with the publisher, he takes home $1610. Let's call the expenses who knows. I know Bill had a research grant and when I first returned to Japan I was offering some avenues he might be able to pursue for funding. The fact is that Bill's expenses for the book could not even cover colour photos or images that could be seen without a magnifiying glass.



    So let's say he actually gets to bank $1610 after costs. He's spent how much time and research putting that material together for his book and he can't even top $2000.



    Bill would have been far better advised financially to back away very slowly from the Bigfoot people, forget he ever heard the letters PGF, and go work on a movie where he could make that much in an hour, never mind seven years. I would tell anyone accussing Bill of profiteering the same I have said of myself. If I want money I drop Bigfoot and spend more time on music. I did in fact put my documentary project on hiatus for my career. If Bill wants money he drops Bigfoot and does make-up.



    So the question becomes seriously, Bigfootery, where is the support for WRMP? I would be surprised if Bill sold 200 copies. That's not a reflection on Bill or the quality of his research which no matter what I or anyone say in disagreement to the conclusions was undoubtedly exhaustive.



    Outside of a small gaggle of us here on this forum, this is the reaction to Bill's book, including in Bigfootery...

    *crickets*

    ReplyDelete
  7. There has never been anything about the PGF that has been shown impossible by a man in a suit. If you have any intention of asserting that hypothesis, you test... wait for it... men in suits.



    This is what Bill has tested...



    http://bigfootforums...-75#entry862790



    The only reason there has been only three attempts ever shown at recreating Patty is not some daunting impossibility. Those three attempts have shown you can match key elements of the PGF, including the proportions and the material used. The reason only three people have every stepped up to the plate is the same reason Bill hasn't broken 200 likes on Facebook for his PGF book. People just are not convinced by the film or interested in 500 page books with memoirs supporting it. Trying to prove the film is fake for most is like... what? Are your serious? Why?



    FX artists have jobs to do, contracts to complete, money to earn. Dealing with you-shall-not-pass-foot is not anywhere on their radar. Chris Walas has shown you can making a smoking hot ape suit for $200 on your first try if you have the skills. Al DeAtley had a lot more than $200 to throw at the PGF. He gave Patterson $75,000 the moment it came out. It had a purpose and Al DeAtley saw to that purpose using Roger Patterson for what he was good for, cut him loose when he was finished and let Roger make a giant flailing mess with what he was worst at.

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

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. There is nothing produced by those attempting efforts at recreating the PGF that incorporates even a little of all three elements, meaning something that can be recognised in having all three elements at one time in one suit; gate, texture and proportions. That's all PGFCB's source are very poor singular element attempts that can be destroyed as follows;

      http://sasfootbigquatch.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/blevins_bf_suit.jpg

      http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/shooting_the_bigfoot.html

      No texture? No muscle groupings? Didn't think so. No... You don't have anything that incorporates even a little of one element, let alone all three in one example, you've sourced attempts at all three elements that not only don't remotely cut it, but aren't seen in one example of any suit anywhere in the world in history.

      "Those three attempts have shown you can match key elements of the PGF, including the proportions and the material used."

      Yeah... Check out the organic tissue in this link;

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      Not one of the sources you can dream up comes anywhere near what you see in the PGF. They are blundering failures, one of which had to take ten years to make with materials not even available to a broke cowboy in the late 1960's. FX artists have jobs to do, contracts to complete, money to earn... And importantly careers to look after. This is why none are invested in this field due to ridicule. Chris Walas has shown you can make a great ape suit for $200... With modern materials on your first try if you are a SFX expert... Funny none of it has visible muscle groupings or texture we see in the Munns link above;

      http://www.hollywoodgorillamen.com/2013/08/chris-walass-buil-up-gorilla-bashthe.html?m=1

      ... And he's only proving my point more and more. DeAtley had money, but not enough money to trump Hollywood SFX at the time; the best Hollywood could manufacture 8 years after the PGF;

      http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/reviewpics/bionicwoman202.jpg

      Pretty hilarious... And all the while we've got PGFCB's crying the way home.

      : p

      Delete
    7. My pants have been removed by the author

      Delete
    8. Where does this ridiculous notion come from that the suit can't be recreated? I have not seen a single solid effort. Don't bother with the crappy suits you see in documentaries that have an agenda to push. Why would a television producer make an honest effort to reproduce the suit? Success would only mean their documentary would be a bore, and further documentaries about bigfoot would be less titilaring. Honestly, after all these years, no physical specimen and you still persist.

      Delete
    9. The notion comes from the fact that there is not suit in history or any known technique of fur cloth known to any costume expert that achieves what you see in the PGF... Not so ridiculous. That this very fundemental fact should be ignored by those claiming that not only the subject in the PGF is fake, there's no solid evidence for the existence of Sasquatch without having a means to reinforce that notion; ridiculous. Is devoting ten years of one's life at a failed recreation, only to have to bitterly reduce the width of the photographs of it by 5%, classed as a 'solid effort'? Why would television producers make the effort? Are you aware of how stupid you come across saying that? Why make themselves look stupid for their efforts if that's the case? What an embarrassing approach... I'll tell you a reason why, to help little children (and the like minded) sleep better at night, that's why, why would someone requiring so much reasurance want to fuel that fear with more Sasquatch documentaries?

      Are you drunk? You make as much sense as a chocolate watch. The evidence for the gorilla didn't stop being a reality all the while it took 60 years to successfully track them.

      Delete
  8. TS is a fraud period! This looks like a freaking Muppet people! FFS!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yet a hoaxed film portraying what is supposed to be a live encounter needs to be filmed like one. Roger does not think like a filmmaker because he was not a filmmaker, at best trying to be one. He doesn't set up the PGF like a studio film shoot because that is not what he's trying to portray. he's already made an attempt at shooting a daylight Bigfoot film using a rented costume at a static position and learned what does and does work, which he corrects when he films the PGF.



    He's not down there with a crew and lighting and equipment like Ed Ragozzino shooting multiple takes waiting for whoever to show up and tank everything he's done. He goes in early, shoots it like he describes it, has it developed at Palo Alto, makes sure it's good, then goes back to stage the event and out with the oh my god and look here at this bent stirrup and no, never mind where it was developed because that's a secret.



    Think like a hoaxer.



    A film with provenance so atrocious as the PGF can not ever be proof of Bigfoot, no matter how commendably one attempts. It sucks, but what you are experiencing, specifically not experiencing even in Bigfootery is a reflection of the reality of the world. 7'6" could have sold Patty but 1 through 16 conclusions in your book do not outside of those sold already before you ever put ink to page.



    That is my inevitable position on it, yet if your evidence truly is of the quality you assert it, hopefully more than a handful of people on an Internet Bigfoot forum will hear about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Roger Patterson doesn't set up the scene like a studio film shoot, no... And shoots the subject in direct sunlight; the most unforgiving of suit lightings, shows up not one suit anomaly. The fact that the footage is shaky is irrelevant for two reasons... Should the footage have been totally controlled and steady, you would have yet further means to act rhetorically, using that as an argument to claim the scene rehearsed. Also... We have digitalised and stabelized versions.

      Friday, October 20, 1967

      At approximately 1:30PM, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin begin filming a hairy bipedal subject walking away from them, up Bluff Creek. 59.5 seconds later (assuming 16 FPS film speed), the role of film runs out. Gimlin pursues the film subject up the creek on horseback for approximately 300 yards before returning to Patterson. The pair spend about 15 minutes rounding up Patterson's horse. Patterson changes the film in his camera under a poncho at the film site. They return on horseback to Gimlin's truck (at Louse Camp?) for casting materials.
      Upon returning to the film site, Patterson and Gimlin attempt to track the film subject. Gimlin follows sign for approximately 200' up the mountain before stopping due to the terrain. Two casts are made - one of a left foot impression and one of a right foot impression. Patterson chooses the most perfect, foot-shaped imprints he can find. Patterson documents the trackway on a second roll of film. This film is subsequently lost. Patterson and Gimlin leave Bluff Creek and drive to Eureka, CA, to send the film via airplane to Yakima, WA, to be processed. Note that according to Daniel Perez, John Green's recollection is they drove to Arcata, CA, although all other sources say they went to Eureka. The two towns are only 8 miles apart. While in Eureka, they call Patterson's brother-in-law Al DeAtley, Albert Hodgson of Willow Creek, CA, and the British Columbia Museum in Victoria, BC, requesting dogs and scientists be sent to the film site. While the museum sends no one, they do call John Green who in turn notifies Rene Dahinden.
      Patterson calls the Yakima Times-Standard and is interviewed by an unknown reporter. Patterson and Gimlin return to Willow Creek, CA, and speak to Al Hodgson and Sylvester McCoy before returning to Louse Camp.

      The reasons behind the footage developers not being made public is because DeAtley had an arrangement for it to be developed under the counter, hense the fast processing time.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. The footage does prove the existence of Sasquatch because the subject may have died out shortly after it being filmed... But we still accumulate scientific physical evidence that points to exact foot morphology of the subject filmed, along with various other sources of evidence over the years such as unknown primate hair, similar eyewitness accounts and even more footage, pointing straight to whatever we see in the footage to still be a living subject residing in the US to this day. Therefore, the PGF is a necessary source of evidence that demonstrates the anatomy and morphology of the relict hominid that provides a thorough basis of study... A study that has the endorsement of some of the very best primatologists, anthroologists and wildlife biologists in the world. And for such an atrocious piece of footage, it sure does require a mass effort on the part of its most fear-ridden to reinforce their stances. It's amazing how few of these idiots who spend the time condemning and crying about the source, making accusations about Munns' expertise, actually have looked at his work, like eye covered children hiding behind the couch, when if they flick to the pictures here;

      http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf

      ... They then realize they're presented with a massive, massive obstacle far greater that they imagined, let alone the data that's written within. You cannot deny what's in front of your very eyes (that's unless you're a chronic fearful denialist), and what's in front of your eyes is a series of some of the most comprehensive comparison shots that display fat deposits and skin folds far exceeding anything we can achieve today in SFX, let alone on 1967.

      Think like a denialist... It doesn't bend reality.

      Delete
  10. The only thing proven in WRMP is that Bill thinks the PGF is real deal.



    Nothing has been proven and everything is subject to interpretation.



    There's no need to prove Bill wrong until Bill proves he is right.



    He has not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry!

      Bill has shown with the very most basic of comparitive photographs that what you see in the PGF subject, is real organic tissue. That is not open to anything other than denial.

      You need to now test the source presented by scientists in the same manner that the scientific method demands. If you cannot test it to a means that reinforces your unsustainable stance, then the default position is the premise being put forward.

      Got monkey suit?

      Delete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joe you are schooling this douche again! Every day now! LOL

    ReplyDelete
  13. Keep up the good work Joe....your chipping away at these cement heads!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Phil Poling, is a retired police detective" ...I thought that he was a retired crime scene photographer? Not that I am discounting that he has a certain expertise, but can someone please clarify?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ya know what is sad (for lack of a better word) is that some of these Bigfoot researchers that we thought were (let's say credible) have turned the other way just to make or try to make a few bucks off of this Bigfoot topic, what money will do to people now a day's......

    ReplyDelete
  16. Classiblogi (classiblogi@gmail.com)
    is the name of data product which can easily Earn you good income!
    This product is a combination of 3 different data:
    1) Free Blogspot.com websites 1st Blogi Data.
    2) Without Registration Free Classified websites 2nd Classi Data.
    3) Register Free Classified websites 3rd Classi Data.
    Why this data is unique from other data offered in net market
    Because this data is without Repetition, all website are active and consist of authentic domains.
    Which make you real income in minimum time.
    1st Blogi Data cost each is 0.060 $ website quantity is 2500 = 150 $ (US)
    2nd Classi Data cost each is 0.075 $ website quantity is 2000 = 150 $ (US)
    3rd Classi Data cost each is 0.10 $ website quantity is 1500 = 150 $ (US)
    The complete Classiblogi product cost is = 450 $ (US)
    You can purchase Any one of the Data or can purchase complete product.
    You can Avail Discount (100 $ US) on purchase of complete product called classiblogi in just= 350 $ (US)
    Contact Email id : classiblogi@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia