Archive for April, 2014

Okay gang, a lot of people were stunned yesterday how I took apart “Blinky”.

      03_11_cal_bigfoot_toddstanding3cd8ed467d44245fecb67d263541f7693a4c0ea7.79365 (1)

(Left) Picture used for analysis. (Right) ELA test indicating digital manipulation

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.

But the few “Doubting Thomas’” out there kept saying things like, “How can the data be accurate? Todd keeps his originals close to the vest.”

One went so far as to accuse me of making things up…

“I think you’re full of crap. This “still” jpeg image was created from a single frame taken from a digital video source. Most likely an MTS file from an AVCHD capable camera. All you have to do is capture a screen shot of the original video, convert the captured image to jpeg format, and you can manipulate it and add all the “convincing” meta data yourself. Hackers do this kind of thing all the time. Technically, the process is referred to as steganography. Nice try. But it isn’t difficult to expose your so-called “analysis” as the real hoax here. Have a nice day.”

                                                      – Tony Reusser, 4/26/14    


These were programs and terms foreign to me. However it did give me cause to answer the question myself, “Where did the the photo I use come from, what was it’s source?”

So thanks to you Tony for being a huge asshole making me want to prove you wrong.

Learn a lesson that Italians don’t like losing debates. Germans even less. I am fifty percent of each.

And when the truth is on my side, this should be pretty easy.

So here’s where I got the picture:

Calgary News


Here’s the article in text…


TV’s Survivorman to chase Bigfoot with Calgary believer

July 10, 2013

By Jeremy Nolais Metro Calgary

Survivorman’s got Sasquatch — and the fact that he may live right here in Alberta — on his mind.

In fact, according to Calgary’s Todd Standing, the head of research group Sylvanic, Les Stroud has been in talks with him for years on organizing a expedition to find the beast of many names but most commonly referred to as Bigfoot or Sasquatch.

Stroud is a popular Canadian TV figure known as Survivorman who’s earned famed for his willingness to journey alone into remote corners of the world armed with only a video camera and keen set of survival skills.

Now, he will team up with Standing in hopes of luring out supposed colonies of unidentified primates living between Banff and Kootenay National Park as well as in northern Montana.

“It’s been a hard sell on his behalf, but it’s all greenlit and we’re going to get it done,” said Standing, who claims he’s come within 65 metres of Bigfoot-like creatures and has devoted his life to validating claims the species exists.

Science Channel issued a release this month confirming it had approved a two-part series called Survivorman Stalking Sasquatch that it plans to air in early 2014.

Representatives of Stroud could not be reached for comment, but he confirmed in a radio podcast with entertainment figure Joe Rogan last year that he was working with Standing on the project, dubbing his host a “really cool gentleman.”

In that same interview, Stroud claimed he’d already previously encountered a “great ape” in a remote area of Alaska, which piqued his curiosity.

Standing said the key will be for him to get the attention of the primates, who he said are dominant and keep track of all their intruders into their areas, and then draw them back to Stroud.

“I want him to come out of there saying ‘Bigfoot is real, and this guy is really studying and researching them,’ ” Standing said.

Standing’s research and that of others associated with Sylvanic already previously drew the attention of Discovery’s Animal Planet show Finding Bigfoot.

In late 2011, a crew with show journeyed into the mountains near Banff and while they found no definitive evidence, they did meet a number of others claiming they’d had encounters similar to ones described by Standing.

“We have ruled out their claims, if we didn’t think they were credible we wouldn’t have gone,” Finding Bigfoot producer Keith Hoffman told Metro shortly after filming.

                                                        Source:  7/10/13


The source of the picture given to the newspaper…



Caption states, photo contributed by Todd Standing.


The caption states that Standing claimed this was a photo… we all thought that was a video still capture.

Which is it? Well we know thanks to our analysis.

As I stated before these are the things a forensic interviewer looks for in interviews, or reviews of interviews past. These little discrepancies are actually monumental. Especially as one as articulate as Standing is.

Till Next Time,



This morning I 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:

Blinky Analysis

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

2.  The photo was taken on May 9th, 2011 at 4:59 PM (Believed to be in the same time zone as Edmonton, Alberta, Canada).


3. The ISO speed was 100,  meaning you are in need of longer exposure time. Not a speed you would set your photographic equipment for something that would move fast such as a Sasquatch, Deer or a student running a track race (something I have had experience with.) This is the LOWEST ISO setting.  Also needed for this exposure is ample light which the plant matter in the front appears to have plenty of unlike the subject in the background.




4. The focal length was 126 mm, meaning the camera had a fair amount of zoom to it and would explain why the plant matter seemed so crisp. But it would also mean the background should be blurred. It is also a zoom, especially with the ISO-100 speed, you would be able to obtain free hand.

Focal length


5. The exposure time is 1/30, by standard “1/30 s: Used for panning subjects moving slower than 30 miles per hour (48 km/h) and for available-light photography. Images taken at this and slower speeds normally require a tripod or an image stabilized lens/camera to be sharp.”


6. F-Stop: 5.6, again set for less field of depth, and where these is more light.

7.    What this indicates is demonstrated by this chart…

Reciprocity 2


All values mean this was shot in a very well lighted place with the assistance of tripod and a zoom lens and the settings of the camera were meant for a stationary, object. In essence it appears to be a very planned, studio shot.

If Standing, being in Production as we’ve previously have shown, should know that all his settings were complete opposite to what the setting would have been to capture photographs of wildlife.


Section 2. The ELA

Error Level Analysis

Error Level Analysis (ELA) identifies areas within an image that are at different compression levels. With JPEG images, the entire picture should be at roughly the same level.

ELA Demo


If a section of the image is at a significantly different error level, then it likely indicates a digital modification. ELA highlights differences in the JPEG compression rate. Regions with uniform coloring, like a solid blue sky or a white wall, will likely have a lower ELA result (darker color) than high-contrast edges.



3cd8ed467d44245fecb67d263541f7693a4c0ea7.79365 (1)

Analysis conducted at:

Analysis of the photograph indicates digital modification. 

The original scan also indicated that the capture was:

Software Conclusion



We have a picture that would need the use of a tripod to enable it to be as clear as shown and the photo has had digital modification.

The video itself shows lack of any other facial movement other than the blinking, therefore it is easily assessed that what we were seeing is a created product, using digital modifications, (e.g. CGI), and in succession and a rendering device from a computer source, not a photographic one.

Conclusion: HOAX.


Till Next Time,


Here begins  lesson #1:

Don’t act like it’s new if its old.

Today I read a blog about an old time photo that said, “we knew nothing on it..until now.”



My file containing the prose written on the back of the photo from 2010.


In 2006, in this article on Cryptomundo, Loren Coleman writes about the picture and references it to Janet and Colin Bord’s Bigfoot Casebook (originally written in 1982 there is an updated version), a must read for any newbie.

It’s on page 27. Although it does not include the picture of the back plate it states,

The photograph shows an unidentified animal shot by trappers in Lillooet, BC in the early 20th century.

                                                          – Bigfoot Casebook, Janet & Colin Bord, Page 27. 

Craig Woolheater also wrote this article on Cryptomundo in November 2006, a virtual repeat of todays blog I read except Cryptomundo included the photo of the writing.



But I will give you NEW…

The first line of Craig’s 2006 post was this…

“This photo was sent to Tom Biscardi by Lyle Billett of Victoria Canada. I found the photo on his website and wanted to share it, as I have never seen it before and imagined that many, or most, have not either.”

                                                                                       – Craig Woolheater, Cryptomundo, 2006

According to the Bords pic was taken in the early 20th Century, The Biscardi copy says 1894. Why wouldn’t the Bords just say the “late nineteenth century?”

I would say lets track down Lyle Billett and ask but unfortunately, Lyle passed away in January of this year, and to be exact he lived in Nanaimo, British Columbia.


Analysis… The writing doesn’t appear in the Bord’s book. Could the handwriting have been added later? It should be considered since the only handwriting photo came from Tom Biscardi’s site. Could it be Billett’s notes? Well I guess its one mystery that went to the grave.

How’s that for, “Something we didn’t now..until now?”

 I guess someone rehashing does have it’s benefits.

Lesson # 2

When we first, fail to learn by history, we are doomed to repeat it.

This whole Todd Standing thing has me a bit perplexed. Are we bound to continually repeat things already proven?

See in 2006 when I set the Hall of Shame up and through 2010 when Todd came out with puppet-face, no one disputed it was all BS.

He disappears for a bit after the “Puppet-face,” only to reemerge, reinventing himself in 2011 with a similarly angle picture who I call “Blinky.”

We ignored him like some suggested we do to Dyer. Here’s  the result:

Dyer self implodes, admits at least body on tour is a fake while Standing goes on shows with Canadian compatriot, Les Stroud.

How did ignoring him work?

Let’s put aside his evidence for a minute. Standings theories on Sasquatch, although some are a bit non-conformist, they are based on some science and research. Standing sounds intelligent, presents himself as knowledgeable and is for all intensive purposes, seemingly a very nice person. All in of itself good.

But you put in the evidence that he has come up with, which is all over the top, and all bets are now off. Put emotion aside people.

Now people who weren’t around for the first couple of rounds with this guy, are new and defending him by waving the no proof banner, which is bunk. But some is good and some new stuff is still being deciphered and some I will debunk here today.

But blind faith backing in light of the evidence…hmm…

Didn’t we just go through this with a guy by the name Dyer? Have we not learned a thing?

Now all of a sudden we have some people, who haven’t outright endorsed his work, sit on a stage with Standing, and people come out of the wood work to defend him.

I guess we haven’t learned.  

Of course, some will say, they don’t trust him, may have more things to look at or will need more time to tell.


“I am not accepting Todd at his word.” –Dr. Jeff Meldrum

  A fair approach I feel. Like I stated yesterday, it appears Dr. Jeff will hold court in the near future over the Toddster’s evidence, but my court was held 8 years ago with the disappeared Sylvanic Video #1 and my court has been long adjourned. Once a hoaxer… always a hoaxer.

That’s why you go to the history books first. Or the people who sit next to them now may be in for a rough ride.

He had 8 years to defend himself and in the beginning, as with most hoaxers, he got caught outright making his very first video (featuring his sister as the main character) disappear. We forget that?

It’s the blind faith followers that always are the most vocal and generally get the most emotional over the situation. When you ask them to debunk evidence submitted, you get no fact but just opinion, and blanket statements that you have no evidence.

People try to say…well if Les Stroud is behind him…

Let’s look at a known hoaxer…

          marxivan_marx 1977 hoax

One of the original hoaxers, Ivan Marx (left) and one of many of his Bigfoots on right. 


Is it any coincidence that Morgan Matthews started his Bigfoot documentary with a hoaxer’s comments?

But in the 80’s Pulitzer Prize nominated, Yale educated, Castleton State College Anthropologist Dr. Warren L. Cook believed in the veracity of the Marx films.  These remarks came in 1984, long after Marx had been exposed as a hoaxer by Peter Byrne in 1971 and disappeared only to have reemerged and reinvented himself. (Again a familiar theme with hoaxers.)



Dr. Cook said of Marx…

“Demonstrably, Ivan Marx of Burney, Shasta County, is a very accomplished nature photographer, skilled woodsman, and animal tracker. By inquiring of Indian and Eskimo informants, and studying Sasquatch habit patterns. Marx would appear to have learned how-to be at the right spot at the right time, camera at the ready.

Ivan feels disoriented in the bowels of a skyscraper and is happiest in the wilderness. He frets until back with his “sweetie”, as he calls his devoted wife, Peggy, who often accompanies him in the wilds. Zealous to preserve their modest, unfettered life style, Ivan and Peggy have invested a major portion of their lives coming up with the Bigfoot photos for which he is well known — some say notorious — among hominologists.

But precisely because year after year, he comes forth with such pictures, they are scorned by some or the other well known Bigfoot enthusiasts. He has equivalent distaste for them as ”great white hunter” types with a sour grapes” attitude toward him because they lack the skills and patience to get anywhere near a sasquatch except by chance.

Marx’s footage sometimes does not conform to the expected image and the specimens in his photos vary in color, size, volume, body fat and length or hair. When he first showed me his color photos, I carped at the domed appearance of the creatures’ skulls (a feature that has subsequently been corroborated by other eyewitnesses with whom I have spoken) and it got back to me that Marx had remarked to a mutual friend. ”I can’t photograph the creature the way them jollies think he ought to look, but only the way he is.”

My concern from the beginning was to establish whether Marx is telling the truth or faking the photos, words and deeds. Anyone who knows him will report that he is one of the greatest story tellers going — a contemporary Will Rogers.

Because my own professional reputation was at stake, since I first met Ivan and at the risk of losing his confidence I have ceaselessly sought to probe for inconsistencies, approaching the same point from different angles, months and years apart.

Doubtless conscious of this, it probably discomfits him but he has always been patient and never failed to give answers that seemed honest and frank. Initially, he and Peggy were unaware of being protagonists in a historical process, and that. It was important to document their photos chronologically and provide details of the content in which they were taken. This had never been done. Plain, unassuming folk, to them it was simply life experienced, year to year.

Until a sasquatch is examined, in the flesh, and the Marx photos are validated or refuted, I cannot be certain my judgment is correct, but I am of the opinion that Ivan and Peggy, while reticent in their personal lives, are steadfastly honest and it would be out of character for them to jeopardize their goal of documenting sasquatch by tainting genuine photos just to produce more.”

                                                                                 — Dr. Warren L. Cook, 1984


marx bbossburg

Rene Dahinden (left), Don Byington (center) and Ivan Marx (right) holding the “Cripple Foot”

Ivan Marx was the one indeed to find the “Bossburg Cripple Foot” track… The castings used by Dr. Grover Krantz were found by Marx.

Joe Rhodes found the first set of tracks on Nov. 24, 1967 and Dahinden did call Marx about the report. However we must remember, at the time, Marx lived in Bossburg.


A young Dr. Krantz in a 70’s documentary showing Marx’s “Bossburg Cripple Foot.”

However, the track, was found with Rene Dahinden and a local man by the name of Jim Hopkins sitting in the car while Marx checked for prints…

Several inches of snow had covered the ground that morning when Rene and Ivan Marx and a young local man named Jim Hopkins set out in Marx’s car to check an area along the banks of the Roosevelt River…Marx was away from the car only seconds before coming back: “Bigfoot Tracks!” he shouted. … the right foot was badly deformed.”

                                    – “Sasquatch” by Don Hunter with Rene Dahinden (1975) Pages: 153-154.


Only seconds. And Marx was driving… it was only months later when Marx tried to sell Byrne a video of a creature, supposedly the one with the bad foot, limping around.


It don’t matter who endorses you… what matters is the EVIDENCE and the story behind it.


Lesson #3

Always recheck your work, especially when it’s not yours.

I on the other hand always try to look from answers up, down, left, right.

Some suggested that I guess a Todd detractor had made the changing images up. Standing stated that someone had sent him that photo. He didn’t describe who, but I do know Todd later circulated it, albeit without description leading many to believe that the picture was the original.

In fairness and telling it like it is, I could not find any original reference to that picture with any claim on it, like I had originally thought and had read by some. 

But what I have found out  WHO created the picture and when.

The picture was created, by a user on a forum here, on or around April 17th, 2013. I coincidently found it a year to the day it was posted.



Putney, a believer in the Muppet-face wrote this…

I have spent a few weeks cleaning up one of the stills from his Video4 in photoshop. I removed all the branches and restored all the facial features of the elusive tree-peakers. (sic)”

                                                                        – Alexander Putney, April 17th, 2013

However a post up at Dave Rodriguez’s (aka Pragmatic Theorist) blog, unveils something more infallible than Sweaty Yeti’s gif. It’s pretty condemning.



One of Dave’s more interesting and condemning work ups.


Lesson #4

What is past is prologue.

We predicted this months ago… Dyer self destructing.

Dyer again finds himself kicked out of a state with all his toys for sale. Rosa his girlfriend, (where in Dyer’s fantasy world she was his wife “Lily Dyer.”) gone… and Dyer taking refuge in or around Griffin, Georgia.

He’s been keeping low… but thanks to Randy Filopovic’s blog, we know exactly what Dyer’s is up to… trying to recover from his latest sociopathic meltdown.


Crap for sale… Location: Griffin, Georgia.

Lesson #5

They don’t go away… they never will.

Of course we’ve mentioned Carmine, Dyer and Standing, but what’s a good time without Linda Newton-Perry, who even after beating the sh** out of her here with her Team ESP BS… she continues just this last week, on April 12th, to post this…


Linda still spouting the same lies.

SSDD as they say or in LNP’s case SSDY, Y being for year. She’s not only a hoaxer and story teller, she’s BAD at it.

Nuff said, but we don’t want innocents giving her real stuff, because she is a front. That’s why every once in a while we need to nudge and spin the shark by it’s tail.


Lesson #6

When all of this seems like a bunch of hooey… thank the good Lord, it’s spring. Because now I have a lot less time to sit and read stuff from Standing, Dyer Fig-Newton, and the Snapple dude, and get my ass out into the field for some investigation and research.



Home sweet home.

Till Next Time,


All the credit goes to “Sweaty Yeti” from the Bigfoot Forums… (A special thanks to Andrew Webster and Joshua Kitzakaze for bringing this to my attention.)

Check out two pictures that Standing had circulated in the past as being a real Sasquatch…



Sweaty Yeti, provided the community with a GIF that shows that it looks like a little manipulation is here at play.



Notice the blur on the foliage which disappears or appears with however order you look at the pictures from?

It would also explain as we called in in 2010, the different angles of light sources. Either this Sasquatch was very photogenic or came into a studio for a photo shoot.

CGI layering folks looking like from composite photos or videos. The subject in the film is a clay model as evidenced by the following picture.


Fake nose


Unless the upper lip separates from the nose, which it does NOT in a primate, guess what? That line should not be there. In fact in the close up you can see the lines of the layer of clay used to construct this fellow.

Fact is the method would have been to construct the face first and the nose would have been added in afterwards. All consistent with a clay model.

Till Next Time,


Just who is Todd Standing?

We pointed out in an earlier blog about my first gut reaction to Todd Standing’s alleged head shot of a Sasquatch and how my gut reaction just doesn’t sit right.

Well first of all it is on good merit.

See why in the world would Todd Standing use an alias while being the main figure at a production company? More matter of fact his sister Louise is using an alias as well.  (Yes he has a sister Louise).

Here’s a screen shot of the old production company site:



And we know Standing aka Todd Rockwell had his own faux Facebook page:


Apparently Todd also has a sister, Chantel.

The question is why would you hide your real name from a legitimate business? unless it is a ploy to set up for your REAL business of Bigfoot hoaxing.




Of course the above ad when revealed several years ago, and some work done over at Ghost Theory, Sylvanic Video #1 disappeared.

It was very clear  that Todd had put an ad in a paper looking for actors prior to the release of Sylvanic one.

But I also believe in my opinion, that the actor thing was not going to work out, and his first original goal was a “Blair Witch”  style Bigfoot “Documentary.”  I also think that Sylvanic 1 was actually Louise Standing playing the voice of the girl in the video.




Whatever the case, the early, less practiced deceptions and aliases should be an alert that Standing was not trying to hide himself from the Bigfoot world, but rather attempting to hide the fact he was fronting a production company is HUGE.


Now take a look at that “Bigfoot” head, and tell me why is there no shots of the body, or it walking into picture? If it’s handheld why no shaking?

It reeks of production company work, my thoughts are CGI with a mix of real photography, and not very good at that because the fact that in both the video and captures the focal point seems at several different depths, at which the layers were focused improperly.

If this was one fluid piece, such as an a real photo or video or animatronic head captured by video, there would only be one focal point per frame of video or picture.


Till next Time


%d bloggers like this: