Yowiehunters Forum

I'm happy to say it again - anyone who believes his ridiculous carefully posed photos are anything but pile of stinging dog dung are deluding themselves big-time:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/04/todd-st ... igfootery/

It looks like the Ewoks are alive and doing well on the planet Endor! I'm used to seeing Ewoks wearing the headgear, so I guess this one feels a bit naked. He could have at least used a talking Ewok doll for a bit of facial movement!

Scarts wrote:It looks like the Ewoks are alive and doing well on the planet Endor! I'm used to seeing Ewoks wearing the headgear, so I guess this one feels a bit naked. He could have at least used a talking Ewok doll for a bit of facial movement!

A range of interesting opinions below (and a lot elsewhere of course!):
http://www.bigfootcrossroads.com/2014/0 ... eview.html
http://www.bigfootcrossroads.com/2014/0 ... nding.html

Someone should seek out Todd Standing's employment history and find out if he has any formal training in either special effects creature design or 3d modelling, specifically using Z-Brush or a similar 3d renderer. Alternatively, how much would you pay someone whose an expert in Z-Brush and rendering programs to create such images? It would be so easy. The dead giveaway is in all 3D rendered pieces, bits that should be crisp are always conveniently blurred and bits that should be blurred are conveniently crisp. Special effects props always have a lifeless quality to them.

Scarts wrote:Someone should seek out Todd Standing's employment history and find out if he has any formal training in either special effects creature design or 3d modelling, specifically using Z-Brush or a similar 3d renderer. Alternatively, how much would you pay someone whose an expert in Z-Brush and rendering programs to create such images? It would be so easy. The dead giveaway is in all 3D rendered pieces, bits that should be crisp are always conveniently blurred and bits that should be blurred are conveniently crisp. Special effects props always have a lifeless quality to them.

Scarts, Since you are representing yourself as an expert on 3d rendering, please prepare a 3d rendering and then point out all of the defects that you have described above. If you can't do this, well, you know what that means.

For those of you who remember Standing first coming on the scene with his Sylvanic nonesense videos which are very hard to find now because Todd took them all down, here is his first video in very low quality.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4kchq ... shortfilms

As you can see in the video, there is very poor acting from the woman, and then a rather laughable roar echoes through the trees with what seems like an invisible Sasquatch comes out of them.

Here is a link about the film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1728675/

As you can see Todd has a background in producing Movies, very c**p movies, so would have an understanding and friends in the industry who would know how to fake/hoax things.

Scarts,

Where is the 3d rendering, since you believe that you are a good enough expert that you can find fault with other's photos by claiming that they are in fact a 3d rendering? Anybody can throw out poorly researched criticism. No qualifications are required.

themanfromglad before you start to criticize Scarts on his opinion.

Please state your opinion of Standings alleged videos of Sasquatch being filmed.

If you believe they are real then tell me why?

Give me your opinion on why a Sasqautch would stand there like a doll with no care of Standing filming him?

Also tell me why Standing has changed his stories from the first Sylvanic videos, which were fiction trying to promote a movie and made to be real, and that have now been deleted mind you, to his velvet head of a Sasquatch, and then a morphing into a recreated version of of what people believe Sasquatch to look like (almost Patterson-Gimlin like). Might I say with the addition of a blink which almost looks mechanical or CGI.

If you can explain that for me I would be much appreciated.

Dion wrote:themanfromglad before you start to criticize Scarts on his opinion.

Please state your opinion of Standings alleged videos of Sasquatch being filmed.

If you believe they are real then tell me why?

Give me your opinion on why a Sasqautch would stand there like a doll with no care of Standing filming him?

Also tell me why Standing has changed his stories from the first Sylvanic videos, which were fiction trying to promote a movie and made to be real, and that have now been deleted mind you, to his velvet head of a Sasquatch, and then a morphing into a recreated version of of what people believe Sasquatch to look like (almost Patterson-Gimlin like). Might I say with the addition of a blink which almost looks mechanical or CGI.

If you can explain that for me I would be much appreciated.

I have not seen a Sasquatch up close, so I am withholding my final opinion of approval or rejection. However, in the velvet face shot that is apparently a female, the lips appear to be authentic. I believe that it is impossible to put authentic lips on a puppet. The hair on the sides appears to bevel into the skin in an authentic fashion. The skin texture can merely be female peach fuzz that is longer than human since they spend a lot more time outside than human females. But I am still witholding final judgement. I have only seen one video of a Bigfoot crouching down, and that appeared to be authentic. What Standing did in the beginning as a movie producer where anything goes, is completely irrelevant to what he has done lately. A producer that once made fictional films, can morph to a documentary film producer. There is no law against that. When a person puts in a lot of time in one area and has proven to the Bigfoot that he is not a threat, then they can treat them with a little bit of what they are looking for. It has happened to me. So I do not find it impossible for Standing to have obtained the videos. I know of other persons who are equally successful as Standing and for the same reasons that I listed. In the world, there is probably not more than a handful of people who have seen enough Bigfoot faces close up, to be qualified to judge whether velvet face and hairy face are authentic. Kewaunee Lapseritis is probably one of them. Why doesn't someone ask him? People like USFS Kathy Strain, who has been interviewed lately, has never seen one up close so she is unqualified to publicly condemn the velvet and hairy face photos. Due to the predictably dysfunctional behavior by researchers of rejecting all evidence as a hoaxed, regardless of it's attributes, I do not find it at all suspicious that Standing has taken down videos that received more criticism than others. Researchers forget that simply owning an internet forum, a website or having been with the BFRO, does in no way make a person qualified to judge closeup photos of Bigfoot, if they have not seen dozens and dozens of them closeup, from all parts of the globe. After all, Bigfoot are shapeshifters.

macquariedave wrote:I'm happy to say it again - anyone who believes his ridiculous carefully posed photos are anything but pile of stinging dog dung are deluding themselves big-time:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/04/todd-st ... igfootery/

Oh dear . . .
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-repo ... t-meldrum/

macquariedave wrote:

macquariedave wrote:I'm happy to say it again - anyone who believes his ridiculous carefully posed photos are anything but pile of stinging dog dung are deluding themselves big-time:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/04/todd-st ... igfootery/

Oh dear . . .
http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-repo ... t-meldrum/

AIBR is Kathy Strain. She does not permit discussion about paranormal Bigfoot in her forums. The closest Kathy has been to a Bigfoot is 100 yards. I was on a BFRO expedition with her once. On another expedition that I was on and she was not there, afterwards, she claimed that what I had accomplished, had never occured. So Kathy has no problem with lieing. She is a person who attempts to dominate everyone around her, which is why she does not qualify her opinion, as in fact being an inexperienced opinion by someone who has never seen a Sasquatch up close. She does the BFRO's dirty work. Nobody in their right mind would take her on.

There are supposed to be at least two types of Bigfoot in the northern U.S. The Ancient Ones and the common Sasquatch. The Ancient Ones are supposed to have human like faces. Which is exactly what velvet face has. If you look real closely, you can see the motled skin is not skin at all, but very short hair. In my opnion, it would be impossible to produce a mask with that short of hair, that also has a perfect weave and with no seams showing between glue lines. Since the parched lips appear to be real, then I can only conclude that it is not a mask and not a puppet. Which leaves only either a real live Ancient One or a Sasquatch person, as the remaining possibilities. So one can use the process of elimination in order to arrive at the truth.

Human vellus hair:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellus_hair

The older the woman and the colder the climate that they live in, the more noticieable will be the peach fuzz. Imagine living outside year round, since you were born, and generation after generation. What kind of evolution do you think is going to take place. Scarts naturally shows us a photo of a fragile young human female who has probably never been camping or walked into a room with the thermostat set at less than 70 degrees F.

Manfromglad, for once you are correct.

I haven't met, talked with, or corresponded with in any way the woman I have posted, but I know she has never been camping before and has never walked into a room with a thermostat set at less than 70 degrees F. Perhaps I'll bring her along on my next yowie field trip so I have something nice to look at! I know she won't object!

The two different chimpanzees have never been in an environment where the temperature is less than 70 degrees F, either. Neither has Todd Standing's Bigfoot!

AIBR is Kathy Strain. She does not permit discussion about paranormal Bigfoot in her forums. The closest Kathy has been to a Bigfoot is 100 yards. I was on a BFRO expedition with her once. On another expedition that I was on and she was not there, afterwards, she claimed that what I had accomplished, had never occured. So Kathy has no problem with lieing. She is a person who attempts to dominate everyone around her, which is why she does not qualify her opinion, as in fact being an inexperienced opinion by someone who has never seen a Sasquatch up close. She does the BFRO's dirty work. Nobody in their right mind would take her on.

There are supposed to be at least two types of Bigfoot in the northern U.S. The Ancient Ones and the common Sasquatch. The Ancient Ones are supposed to have human like faces. Which is exactly what velvet face has. If you look real closely, you can see the motled skin is not skin at all, but very short hair. In my opnion, it would be impossible to produce a mask with that short of hair, that also has a perfect weave and with no seams showing between glue lines. Since the parched lips appear to be real, then I can only conclude that it is not a mask and not a puppet. Which leaves only either a real live Ancient One or a Sasquatch person, as the remaining possibilities. So one can use the process of elimination in order to arrive at the truth.[/quote]

You've never heard of CGI?

themanfromglad wrote:

I have not seen a Sasquatch up close, so I am withholding my final opinion of approval or rejection.

And yet you write at length about the authenticity of the features of an animal you have not seen up close

FM80 wrote:

themanfromglad wrote:

I have not seen a Sasquatch up close, so I am withholding my final opinion of approval or rejection.

And yet you write at length about the authenticity of the features of an animal you have not seen up close

Please notice the time stamp on the entry that you quoted. Then notice the time stamp on my entries citing points of interest that show promise. After the passage of two days, I would now conclude that velvet face appears to be an authentic live person of the Bigfoot/Yowie species. I can only suspect that velvet face is an Ancient One, since I have never seen an Ancient One. A person that I interviewed in the last 24 hours, who has seen several female Sasquatch up close, has further convinced me that velvet face is not a common Sasquatch.

macquariedave wrote:I'm happy to say it again - anyone who believes his ridiculous carefully posed photos are anything but pile of stinging dog dung are deluding themselves big-time:
http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/04/todd-st ... igfootery/

More on the Toddster . . .
http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/h ... -operates/

macquariedave wrote: More on the Toddster . . .
http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/h ... -operates/

http://www.thecryptocrew.com/2014/04/an ... -dust.html

Regarding CGI, I posted three images, the second one twice. Each image is entirely CGI.

In the first, the ape, the eyes are too glassy. Note the absence of any truly crisp edges and no true blacks. Most noteable is the mottling of the skin on the brows.

In the second and third images, the girl, the eyelashes aren't thick enough, or crisp enough, the pupils not black enough, the corners of the eyes not the right pink, and absolutely no discoloration of the whites of the eyeballs. Additionally, the skin texture is mottled and some of the hair has pixelation / granulation occurring. To be ultra picky, even a young female face, will have a very fine coating of fine tiny hairs. This young female has none.

In the last image with the ape, the whole image is ever so slightly blurred, with no crisp hairs anywhere evident on the ape. Most noteably, there is no true black, just a grey that doesn't quite reach the black level. Even the lines of the fingers in the foreground are blurred. The white highlights in the eyes are a step back into the grey zone. This is typical of CGI.

Take Standing's adult bigfoot photo. Note the mottling of the skin and the fluoro yellow of the right eye. The hair is really nicely done, but I still think excessively blurred, like CGI hair with no sharp hair follicle edges. What's the go with the discoloured red area in the lower left corner of the hair? The mottled skin is what sells it for me as CGI, as that sort of mottling doesn't occur in real life humans, animals, or known primates.