Update: Todd Standing and Sylvanic

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 25th, 2010

I just noticed this update on the Sylvanic website:


Todd just returned from an 8 day expedition with incredible Bigfoot documentation. It was a bit of an adventure as he had a confrontation with a Grizzly bear that ended in rescue by RCMP and Search and Rescue after being missing for 3 days. The team and his family are thrilled he made it back safely and he is ecstatic with his new photo and video evidence!

Here is one of the photos where he caught Bigfoot watching him through the bushes~as you can see it was taken in full sunlight with fantastic detail.

Todd Standing and Sylvanic

Click on image for full size version.

More will follow shortly; Todd has just returned a couple of days ago and is recuperating with his family. We can’t wait to see his new video!Sylvanic.com

John Kirk, fellow Cryptomundo blogger, president of the BCSCC and good Canadian citizen is checking into these claims and will be reporting back to Cryptomundo.

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

24 Responses to “Update: Todd Standing and Sylvanic”

  1. TimmyRyan65 responds:

    This is a joke right? If not, I think Loren’s Bigfoot statue looks more realistic that this “face” of the supposed Sasquatch!

  2. graybear responds:

    When it is well done a Photoshopped pic is difficult to tell from reality. This isn’t well done and isn’t difficult to tell from reality. Are we really supposed to believe that the Sasquatch is made of clay and bad fake fur? Or is the alleged face a still from King Kong meets Godzilla?

  3. wildmaiden responds:

    LOL. Literally.

    Why, oh why didn’t he go the “blobsquatch” route? At least that way he might have been able to fool SOMEBODY.

    Although in fairness, I suppose it could be possible that this single photo may not be indicative of his entire portfolio of evidence (which includes a video? I’d like to see that thing move without breaking!), and perhaps there was some kind of weird lighting enhacement or some other processing effect that is causing the incredibly fake look we’re seeing.

    Why he would release only a single image that looks that terrible is beyond me. I wonder if he fed it pancakes…

  4. Jason P. responds:

    Craig, sorry to be a naysayer, but your lack of commentary on some of the more ridiculous pictures and videos that you post here makes me wonder. You can’t seriously think that this is any kind of real evidence of anything, can you?

  5. wolfatrest responds:

    I think the point of not making any comments is so they can get our opinions without influencing them with their own. This is definitely one of the most fake things I’ve ever seen, but who knows? Maybe the real thing looks this fake, lol. The eye looks very dull, not the moist, reflective surface I’d expect to see in a live creature.

  6. graybear responds:

    If nothing else, Jason P., it’s evidence of just how stupid some people think the rest of us are.

  7. Greg102 responds:

    If Todd Standing thinks that people are going to believe that thing is a living breathing biological animal, I want to know what he’s smoking. I’ve seen more realistic wax figures at Madam Tussauds. This isn’t even close to fooling any level headed person.

  8. AlyoshaK responds:

    This is ridiculous….one doesn’t even have to think. The human brain is better at detecting life and faces than anything else. One instantly sees a larger version of an Ewok puppet. What a waste of time.

  9. Dr Kaco responds:

    This pic wasn’t taken on the Forest Moon of Endor was it????? ;p

    Still funny good post Craig!!

    You are doing a good job no matter what “they” keep sayin’!!


  10. Greg102 responds:

    If you right click the photo and save it. Then do a right click and view the advanced properties. The photo was taken on 8/18/2010 at 8:13PM. Hmm looks like it was during the day in the photo, and he claims it was taken in October. But according to the photo properties it is August and at night. He needs to address those discrepancies before he even tries to convince us what’s in the photo is a real living bigfoot. Also it says in the advanced properties the creation software was Adobe Photoshop CS3 and he used FujiFilm FinePix S1000fd camera. Todd you might fool some hardcore bigfoot wack believers, but you’re not going to convince rational, scientific, educated people that want to get to the truth on the Bigfoot subject. I’m so sick of stuff like this muddying the bigfoot waters, it completely undermines us who take this subject seriously. The hoaxes and lies are so intertwined, it’s no wonder few scientists take this subject seriously.

  11. nhall responds:

    Aside from the mask itself looking fake, the photoshop job on this pic is horrendous. It appears to be a composite of a couple of different images that have light sources coming from different directions (and no, not from a camera flash). Plus, what’s up with that big smear in the top right corner?

  12. Tarzanboyy responds:

    Wowww. Could that be any more fake?

  13. hff135 responds:

    I went to one of Todd Standing’s presententations once. It was poorly done and my impression is that he’s just another hoaxer. I automatically dismiss every claim he makes about this subject as false.

    Do some research on this site and on BFRO and you’ll find the general consensus seems to be the same.

  14. Mahalo X responds:

    Well the good news is that from the looks of this creature’s coif, there should be physical evidence in the form of hair samples everywhere! Reminds me of Animal from the Muppets.
    We’ll see.

  15. wolfatrest responds:

    ROFLMAO!!! Of course, an Ewok. I KNEW I had seen that face somewhere but just couldn’t remember where.

  16. gridbug responds:

    Wow. Just… wow.

  17. JMonkey responds:

    This looks like one of the actors from Cats. Did he take an excursion down Broadway. I mean seriously. People like this make it harder for everyone else.

  18. Daedalus responds:

    I think I will wait till the man sent to check on this gets back to us with what he has found before I start making a determination. It may be a huge Hoax, but it may not also.

    I have found that the facts will speak for themselves when put forward for all to see.

  19. DWA responds:

    OK. All the oh-please indicators are in place.

    1. Almost no backstory, of any kind whatsoever.
    2. That’s the *only* picture? Doesn’t seem too likely; where are the others? Oh yeah. The video. Been here before.
    3. The whole “there’s more” tease. Scientists wait until the proof is in, then show you it all.
    4. Throwing in Something Else Incredible (griz encounter) as if it’s some sort of excuse.
    5. The whole Bigfoot-consortium thing. “Sylvanic.” [teeth grind; fingernails-on-blackboard]

    And shoot, lemme just say this. That could be a sasquatch. I’ve never seen one; have you? It’s just that there isn’t a thing associated with that photo that would lead me to believe that. (Three words: use lip balm.)

    The whole approach is so freakin’ joke-standard that it’s just…oh, let me go on with my life.

    But. One more thing I need to say.

    I see a strain of thinking on this site that goes: let’s just cynically shoot down everything short of proof. That’s what happened to Patty; it’s what has happened, in fact, to just about every piece of cryptid evidence: it hits The Wall of Cynical Disbelief, and sinks without trace. Hey people. THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE MOST EXTREMELY NON-SCIENTIFIC SLANT OF MIND CONCEIVABLE. It’s how idiots roasted Galileo.

    I am interested – ONLY interested – in a scientific approach to this question. There is not a single “debunk” comment up there that holds scientific water. (No. Stop. YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT “FAKE” LOOKS LIKE.) This isn’t a blobsquatch; but unless you have seen a number of sasquatch, you cannot tell me what that is, or isn’t. It’s the approach to it that I say stinks of don’t-bother. I can’t say thing one about that photo. And neither can you. The that-is-totally-fake-because slant is simply the flip side of the I-believe end of the spectrum. Neither sheds any light whatsoever. I’d be willing to bet money that ain’t a real sasquatch for one reason: I have seen this approach to “evidence” like this times beyond counting. Not one has shed light yet. I’m waiting for light, not another damn photo complete with song and dance.

    I sense that many people here have had their hearts broken too many times, and like any repeatedly-jilted lover, have started going cynical. Or were just total cynics in the first place (what are you doing here? Feeling superior or something? Um, you’re not, and it’s showing. OK?) See, I’m immune to all that crap, and if you are really interested you should be too. After all, so is anyone who looks at this scientifically. BECA– USE THIS IS NOT ABOUT TRUST, OR BELIEF. IT IS ABOUT EVIDENCE.

    Here’s what I say to Todd: if that’s all your evidence it’s not enough. There’s at the least reasonable doubt here. I’m betting based on past experience – among other things, with you – that you have nothing else that passes muster. If you can prove me wrong, do.

    Jason P: Craig puts things like this up here to allow Cryptomundo readers to exercise their analysis muscles. (And for folks who do that regularly to offer occasional pointers.) It’s totally counter to his purpose to say here’s another-idiot.

    Because he knows what happened to Galileo. And to Patterson.

  20. JMonkey responds:

    You want a scientific exercise. Her goes. I used editing software to blow up the picture and analize certain places. Either this “Bigfoot has a fur hood on or his skin has been severed right at the faceline, since it does not connect. A bright point is that the short hair on the face does seem to be just that, although an extremely talented person could have hoaxed it I am positive, but I am not saying that is what happened. I cannot view the video at present, but I do plan to watch it in its entirety and analize it as well. This picture would absolutley shock me if it was indeed real.

  21. DWA responds:

    JMonkey: that exercise results in an opinion. Not something you can go from here to proof with.

    It’s the ol’ “Patty has a zipper” thing. It’s been completely discredited, but you keep hearing it.

    This is nothing in terms of getting to proof, since no one can say, based on this photo alone, what this is.

    Unless someone comes in with evidence that intrigues the scientific mainstream enough that the resources are devoted to field research yielding proof…forget it. That’s how science works.

  22. Mahalo X responds:

    Well put, way to stay objective.
    (good approach)

  23. funsport1213 responds:

    Bigfoot is notorious for knowing where you are before you know where he is. Why would he be looking away from the camera as if posing? He would never keep his eyes off of you, especially if you have something in your hands pointing it at him. Why is his skin orange? Wouldn’t his nostrils (not nose but the actual holes) be a lot bigger? He has a massive chest which I’m sure has massive lungs. Those are pretty small holes.

    I am so disappointed. I was leaning toward believing Todd Standing was on the up and up until this.

  24. TheForthcoming responds:

    One word: Fake.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.