Analysis in… Todd Standing’s Blinking Bigfoot
Posted by: Steve Kulls on May 5th, 2014
I recently completed analysis on one of the still’s Mr. Standing had been putting up on websites, of the alleged video better know as I call it, “Blinky,” the blinking Bigfoot video.
“The Standing Blinking Bigfoot Capture” (Source Todd Standing)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
>My first reaction to the film was, wow interesting, but a trained eye can see the multiple points of focus such as the camera being focused on the very near plant matter, and for some reason appears to be focused down range particularly on the alleged Sasquatch’s face.
In doing some analysis on the still of the video here is what I found…
Software Photo analysis of data.
Analysis of Todd Standing’s Blinking Bigfoot…
Section 1 – Examining Camera Settings
1. The still of the video is not a still at all but in actuality was a photograph taken with a Canon model EOS 60D.
The Canon EOS 60D
Read more about by clicking here.
About Steve Kulls
Steve had a lifelong fascination with the Bigfoot phenomena since an early age. In 1998 after reading "Monsters of the Northwoods", and learned that there were numerous sighting reports close to his residence in upstate New York. He began to investigate extremely skeptical but soon changed his mind. Squatchdetective.com was the creation of Steve Kulls, aka "The Squatchdetective" Steve launched Squatchdetective.com with a national outlook in December 2005. In September 2006 he created Squatchdetective Radio.
Steve has appeared on numerous local news programs around the country and national venues such as Fox and Friends, and interviewed in print in over 100 newspapers over the last ten years. Steve has appeared on the History Channel the National Geographic Channel, featured on several programs, and authored two book, "Fifty Large," and "What Would Sasquatch Do?"
Steve is a former Licensed Private Investigator, in New York, and a former retail investigator of 18 years, a Firefighter and Paramedic
That’s a great analysis, by someone who seems to really know what they’re doing, and a decisive debunking.
Very nice analysis.
Here is what I posted at the other site, so that you can see it here, without going there to see it. I would like PhotoExpert’s comment, but he doesn’t seem to be around here lately, so feel free to comment, no matter who you are:
“While I put away my Canon digital camera some time ago in favor of the challenge of iPhonography, I seem to recall that I could choose to set it to take photos in BOTH RAW and .jpeg formats. To me, this would explain the photo being in .jpeg format. But the RAW version should also have been provided for analysis.
I want to make it clear I hold no brief whatsoever for Todd Standing. In fact, I regard him as a fraud of the rankest sort.”
I neglected to mention that I think it is quite possible to take such a photo at 1/30 of a second, although it is far more likely that it would have suffered from camera shake.
It IS possible, however. I’ve done it. Quite by happenstance, but I’ve done it.
Goodfoot–Hey buddy! I’m still around. I read every single day. I just have not posted lately.
You can read my explanation in Steve’s updated version of this thread. But I will take the time to put in my two cents here for you, my friend.
Yes, it is possible to take a photo at 1/30th of a second. This is easily accomplished with flash and the photo is clear and sharp. I believe you are referring to taking a photo without the aid of a flash, correct?
Well, that is a little more difficult to accomplish. And if you add in a telephoto lens of the 150 mm type or greater, the task is harder to accomplish. The longer the lens and the slower the shutter speed, the more difficult it it. But yes, it can be done. And depending on your skill level, some photographers have a more steady hand than others. It is similar to a surgeon holding a scalpel. Some hands are more steady than others.
With that being said, I can hand hold below 1/30th of a second shutter speed routinely with longer lenses. And if pushed, I can hand hold longer lenses with the aid of a wall or tree without a monopod and tripod and get very acceptable results.
Part of this has to do with my experience. Add to that, that my hands are extremely steady like a good surgeon to minimize shake, add to that my breathing techniques as a sharpshooter with rifles applied to the camera, I do it with relative ease. Also by relaxing and lower your pulse rate and intensity, helps a lot too.
So yes, it is not a freak event. And it was probably not by happenstance Goodfoot that you accomplished this. It might seem that way, but you probably just have a more steady hand than most. I can do it routinely and I know a few other photographers that can do it as well. Although their photos may not be as good as mine. LOL
Earlier in my career, I tried to handhold a camera set at 1/60th, 1/30th, 1/15th and 1/8th of a second, just to see the results. At a 60th, no problem! At a 30th, 9 out of 10 were great. At 1/15th, maybe 50% of the time they were pretty good. Under that, maybe 1 or 2 out of every 10 were acceptable. The longer the lens, the more difficult it was, even for me! I could increase the percentage of acceptable photos if I moved the telephoto lens down to a wider angle lens.
The short answer is, yes it can be done. Not only is it possible, it is probable, even for an amature photographer to accomplish this.