I will be the first to admit I am naive of Standings dubious ways , his video seemed real to me although ... The photo of the blonde / white Squatch may have been Todd's representation of a Yeti ? it does looks to be very different then the other one..
To me it still seems like the best footage when it comes to video big foot , time will tell
Not sure if there were witnesses to the filming , if so I have not seen , you would think there would be at least one witness.
He would surely be one lucky mofo to film both a Sassy and a Yeti ! not that he did claimed to have , to the best of my knowledge.
Edit to add a video from a you-tuber with questions
The Author of "A critical examination of todd standings sylvanic video subjects" was emotional and did not do a critical examination , sad stuff.
He suggested todd should come visit to clear up the slight of hand that was authored in that flashy pdf file.
here is a copy and paste from the author Daniel's pdf file where he lets us know he will be fudging the tests.
Quote There are some still images obtained from Todd Standing’s websites for the purposes of analysis that do not appear to correspond to any of the numerous video clips so far released, but we have grouped them all here for analysis under the subjects of Videos 4 and 5. Mr Standing may wish to clarify which are video still and which are still photographs. For the sake of this document, we are treating them as Video evidence for objective analysis. If Mr Standing wishes to provide higher resolution material or original files to us or for independent experts to evaluate for the sake of scientific verification, we would be thrilled. (end quote)
Why would he the author do this ? everything he says after words is suspect by his own emission he is trying to taunt Todd to clear up his what must be purposeful lies when describing photos as video OR video as photos.
This is my first critical examination of Daniels first few paragraphs in his examination.
I will critically examine his photographic . video experts conclusion , those will be easy to prove truthful or not.
Not sure if anyone has put this guy to task on the report so I will here and now.
I am learning to analyze digital files for signatures of manipulation - more to come as I learn and test the conclusions given in the pdf by the apparent expert , which I bet he is not , mark my words.
More badness has come to light , which means bunk propaganda is coming from the peanut gallery.
DISCLAIMER: imo Todd is not telling the truth ( nor is Daniel in the PDF debunking Todd)
I found this tid bit of information fascinating as I keep reading todds critics say "HE Said he would show bigfooter to Dr Meldrum but never did - OR DID HE ?
Dr. Meldrum has the following to say regarding to the above claims:
Quote Meldrum I will say that I did witness and interaction, I observed through a night vision an upright silhouetted figure, forward-leaning, arm-swinging, moving smoothly. Was it a Sasquatch? I am not certain, but under the circumstances and based on the reconstruction conducted the next day, it strikes me as a real possibility that it was. end quote/
So he Todd DID take Dr Meldrum to see the site after all !
This fact must piss Todds critics off , as it contradicts them.
Its a task separating propaganda from the articles I have been reading as Peoples opinions are treated like fact without the supporting evidence.
Both Todd and his detractors are lacking evidence. The signs of digital manipulation put forth in the above pdf are suspect imo.
The opinions put forth are opinions , the expert lacked the ability to recognize that the errors present in those areas he highlighted from still or video are there because THOSE are the areas with the MOST DETAIL ! not most signs of manipulation.
With the most detail comes the most information and errors from the denser digital information/detail. I learned about this when learning about digital photography, its very basic knowledge that does not require years of school. It's common knowledge.
I like to think of myself as a wolf not a sheep but having a wolves personalty as such I do not follow sheep.
I see the pdf as being written by a sheep more so it appears to me that is was so I am debating it.
I can literally dissect that pdf point by point and show it to be no better then propaganda. It is not scientific.
The edges highlighted in that pdf of the face shows the edges are the same as they should be , being edges with high contrast and detail.
If the edges were not the same it would indicate something may of been retouched , but they were THE SAME.
Quote from photoforensics -
What To Look For
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. The things to look for:
Edges Similar edges should have similar brightness in the ELA result. All high-contrast edges should look similar to each other, and all low-contrast edges should look similar. With an original photo, low-contrast edges should be almost as bright as high-contrast edges. Textures Similar textures should have similar coloring under ELA. Areas with more surface detail, such as a close-up of a basketball, will likely have a higher ELA result than a smooth surface. Surfaces Regardless of the actual color of the surface, all flat surfaces should have about the same coloring under ELA. -end-
Try to use common sense your emotions do not do you justice
I will not be intimated
No one here has tried to intimidate you
You are the only only using emotions
You are the one that stated Todd Standings detractors get pissed off by facts. You insult those that disagree with Todd Standing in this thread, showing your own personal bias before you conduct this research
Then intimate that Jason is trying to intimidate you when he states his opinion
I guess I must be a sheep since I don't agree with you on this issue