Critical Examination of Standing/Sylvanic Bigfoot Videos
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 12th, 2014
Daniel Falconer sends along the following paper to share with the Cryptomundians:
Preface: Applying reasoned examination based on their respective fields of expertise, Phil Poling (formally trained in photography and with a twenty year law enforcement background) and Daniel Falconer (seventeen year working for special effects company and writer of numerous books on film special effects) have come together to analyse Todd Standing’s claimed bigfoot videos. Compiling their observations and reasoning in freely available, illustrated PDF, Falconer and Poling hope this document will of help to readers who wish to critically examine Standing’s videos and draw their own conclusions. Poling and Falconer had never been in contact or worked with each other before, but their conclusions, reached independently and with the benefit of very different backgrounds, were practically identical.
Here a few samples pages:
Download the 29 page, 1 MB file here: Critical Examination of Standing/Sylvanic Bigfoot Videos
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.
Oh what a tangled web we leave…
lol… shocking report.
i’m SO surprised.
wait. they said the same things I said when these garbage photos came out.
Duh…
Seriously, raise your hand if you were ever “on the fence” about these photos. Anyone?
dconstrukt: Very true. Sorry, but I can’t help but wonder who Todd Standing is really working for? What is the real purpose behind this severe level of disinformation and fakery?
Who is Todd Standing? Who does he actually work for?
This site is working in a very hinky manner today, bringing up incomplete pages, at least on my end.
Goodfoot: yeah, it makes me wonder about Les Stroud and why he would align himself with this type of thing. And the site has been weird for me too, having to refresh pages to get them to display properly.
i’m not sure really…. its painfully obvious his photos are garbage… anyone with half a brain and isnt brainwashing themselves that everything is a bigfoot can see those things he’s shown aren’t real.
Is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the flocked bunny mask looks much more real than Standing’s gaff constructions?
It looks a lot like a girl I went to school with, if she were into the whole furry fetish. Creepy really.
For me without reading the download.. I could tell the photo on the left was flocked. I have seen train set dioramas flocked more realistically.
The photo on the right, first thing I thought was the mouth was too small, as in not wide enough; and the nostrils were almost non-existent.
my personal rule of thumb, a childhood riddle:
Why do Gorilla’s have such big nostrils?
Because they have such big fingers.
I figure it would stand true for bigfoot too.
It is educational to read a reasoned, analytical evaluation of these images. I always felt from Day One that these images by Standing were hoaxed. Studies like these confirm that my innate “BS Meter” is functioning just fine. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with animals (even pet dogs or cats) would be able to notice the un-authentic characteristics of the hair and eyes of the subjects in Standing’s photos.
As for why some well-known names are associating themselves with Standing the Hoaxer? I say “Follow the money” — Standing is probably enticing these folks to link up with him for filthy lucre.
I feel it is unfortunate the Hoaxers like Standing are sucking up all the oxygen and media attention, while more legitimate researchers are being overlooked or shunned.
When I read the paper this stood out: “Another statement about outrunning a grizzly bear I also find suspect.”
Standing might want to know that there are few if any documented cases of a grizzly bear being outrun by a human. Unlike the frequently-reported case for sasquatch, grizzly intimidation tends to go beyond setting you on your way at a sprint.
So. You’re surrounded by three sasquatch…and we don’t have the full roll of video from this extraordinary occurrence? Just these snippets, shot full of holes? Oh. OK.
What I like about this analysis is its adept handling of two principles bigfoot skeptics have a hard time with:
1. All animals are alike in basic ways.
2. All animals are unique, each in its own way.
It is appropriate to raise legitimate questions about whether that “wink” is a real wink or not, given that no primate has a similar wink mechanism. (And given that it is a demonstrably achievable artifact.)
In all…well, I am not sure that this analysis was necessary, as so many of us had it nailed from Frame 1, but in a field like this one, I guess, sometimes it is. The trash dominates, unfairly. And as we have all seen from the PGF, sometimes trash is unfairly generated (e.g. Patty’s bucket-butt; sagittal crest-with-breasts; and ‘zipper.’ ) So I guess the trash must be taken out from time to time. And that said: Good job.
BrungerB: all the more reason for us to question whether the media are focusing their attention properly anywhere else.
Unfortunately, media coverage is by “journalists” with a limited degree of technical expertise in the subjects they are covering. Attention to discoveries by the scientific mainstream may feed the conviction that the media side with science. This subject puts the lie to that one, big time. The media tend to side with the mainstream, and not to go for “the story behind the story” when legitimate scientists – employing their expertise and the curiosity that is the mark of the scientist – vouch for something the mainstream can’t accept yet.
It’s a shame, for sure, that 99% of the truly gripping stuff in this field goes almost completely unreported except by those of us in the know. And that gripping stuff is – surprise! – the science. You are right that to see how compelling sasquatch evidence is – and how laughably short guys like Standing fall – one doesn’t need a Ph.D. One only needs common sense. And the desire to devote some time, which generally only comes from prior interest (e.g. in animals and the outdoors).
As I recall being told, I am pretty sure that both Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel had their trips paid for by Standing (or his backer). Of course there is more to that story that will come out. I’m sure I will be corrected if I’m wrong.
Here is an evaluation written about the critical examination that notes a number of inaccurate statements and questionable conclusions by the researchers.
It has occurred to me that the likely creator of these abominations is Todd Standing – and he may actually also believe they’re the real thing. There are historical precedents in the history of hoaxes and abnormal psychology.
After all, Norman Bates believed his mother was alive when he dressed as her… (I realize that that’s fiction.)