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,