Flawed Todd

Well, it looks like Todd Standing is back and he is grumpier than ever. It seemed like it was not long ago Todd said he was closing down his Facebook account and moving on.

Now he is back and he is defending his photos of the lifeless looking Bigfoot affectionately known as Blinky.
 It appears that Mr. Standing is miffed that I, and others compared his face to Blinky's. The facial features really are amazing and match up almost perfectly.

If you have not watched Todd's latest video, here it is. In this video Todd tries desperately to shoot down the idea that Todd is Blinky. In my opinion, he is trying to hard too defend himself.

In the video, Todd uses a Douglas Fir pine needle...yes, you read that correctly, a Douglas Fir pine needle. Those are Todd's words, not mine. Mind you, he said black bears don't give off a heat signature, so take it for what it is.
  Todd uses the fir needles as a ruler to measure the width of Blinky's face. As usual, Mr. Muppet talks fast enough and with enough confidence that on the surface, his analyses seems legit.

Instead of using math, Todd goes out on a limb and just guesses....but he makes it sound convincing. Conveniently, Standing tells us that he busted the lens used to take photos of Blinky. He also says it's a long story but fails to tell us the story. The guy is right there talking and making a video. It's a perfect time to tell us a long story. Maybe he hasn't thought it up yet or maybe stories are too easy to question.

Like Euell Gibbons in a Grape Nuts commercial, Todd gets down to business with his fir....I mean pine needles. He has made little coloured lines to show how wide Blinky's face is. What I want to know is, are those marks accurate and to scale with the face? If you notice, Blinky has a bit of a profile. The image is not a straight on shot, so that's strike one.

Standing has no idea how far the fir needle in reference is from the face of the subject. It's another guess made based on the arbitrary decision of a nameless "photographer". Todd therefore uses the well thought out equation of reducing the fir needle length by 10%. Strike two.

Mr. Smarty pants also has no idea how far the camera person was from the subject, nor does he mention if the photographer is on lower ground, higher ground or even ground with that of the subject. He makes no mention of the make and model of the camera or the lens.Strike three. Strike our. Strike five.

Todd leaves out absolutely everything that can lend credibility to his assertions on how big his bigfoot might be. He merely gives us his subjective opinions and states them as fact. Why should anyone take his word for that?

Todd Standing is going to have to do much better if he plans on hanging around for any length of time. Time for him to put on his big boy pants.

Robert Dodson's "Bigfoot"

 This screenshot has caused a lot of discussion in the Bigfoot world. Some people think it's a real Bigfoot and others, like me, think it's simply pareidolia. I will do my best to show why I think this is nothing more than shadows, leaves and twigs.

Before I get started, I want to say that I do not think Robert Dodson is a hoaxer. I think he is a sincere and hard working guy who thinks he caught a Bigfoot on camera. I do, however, think he is mistaken.

I have watched this video over twenty times and I also zoomed in  on the area this face is supposed to be. The video is a bit lengthy for such a short clip. The first section of the video shows a clip from Robert's video played at regular speed. The second part is inverted and last is a zoomed in clip of the same location. For me, it was the zoomed in video clip that confirmed to me that what we see is not a Bigfoot face.

Here is the clip with the audio removed.

Instead of cherry picking one still image from the video, I will present some that were taken by me and some that were taken by other people who are having a discussion in a Facebook group.

The above screenshots don't show a clear face in my opinion with the exception of the last one but that is still a stretch of the imagination.

Likewise, in the screenshots below, I do not see a face that holds a consistent shape throughout the portion of the video clip in question.

Even for an alleged juvenile or toddler Bigfoot, this face is is very small compared to the leaves in the foreground. Also, if this is a young Bigfoot in such close proximity to a noisy human, where is the mother or father? Why didn't Robert see it? It was only mere feet in front of him.

I give my interpretation of what I saw in the video. The "face" is an illusion created by shadows, foreground leaves and some twigs.

Same location but a slightly different camera angle.  A little up and to your right is a tree trunk. I don't see anything that resembles a primate's face.

This screenshot shows the same spot without the red square.

These last two screenshots show a closer look and also show shadows, leaves and foliage, in my opinion.

The screenshot originally shown in one of Robert's video really gave no explanation, no context and no time stamp that the "face" was captured. The complete lack of information regarding this image, as I viewed it in his other video is a bit frustrating. I had to dig and ask Robert questions about the video, and to his credit he was quick to reply with some answers.

There are those who have put their seal of approval on this video but I haven't seen any serious breakdown or analysis. I certainly don't consider my analysis to be in depth and exhaustive but it does show why I am holding the position that I have. I do not see the face of a Bigfoot in this video clip.

This image below clearly shows the face of a gorilla. It is undeniable.
If an image of this quality was shown in Robert's video, I may have a different opinion.

Kelly Shaw is a Crybaby

Remember on my last blog when I said that Kelly was a detriment to himself? Well, he's gone and stuck his big foot in his big fat crybaby mouth again. The fucking baby just can't man up and admit when he was wrong. He has to blame someone else.

Jelly Jaw was hoaxed by some fun loving folks hoaxing a video. Normally hoaxes bother me but this particular one was so obviously not a bigfoot because it was just a dark blip on the screen.

I have linked to the video because I want this guy to make some money because of the grief Kelly Shaw is causing him. Be kind and click the video.

Shaw is crying because he spent money to go to the location and check it out. He wanted to be the bigshot, first on the scene, so that's his problem. Nobody told him to pack up and go there. I never heard Jack and Jeff cry when they were hoaxed by those two kids. I never heard them cry when it came to being duped...many times.

Poor old jabber jaw has his panties in a bunch now because he made an ass of himself and we are all laughing at him. He's blaming the people that made the bigfoot video and Shaw wants his pound of flesh.

Kelly Shaw is whining like a bitch and he claims to have filed a complaint with the FAA against the guy with the Bigfoot video. The FAA assured Kelly? Really now? Shaw is known to lie a lot when things don't go his way. He's a bully and a thin skinned fucking pansy. If I bitched like he did my old man, RIP,  would have slapped me silly.

Shaw is a hypocrite, and a bitch. Don't forget bitch. I wonder if Mr. Bitch has his commercial pilot license for drones. If he does, he should produce it. How come Kelly can make monetized videos using his drone and hardpack101 can not? There is no law against using a drone to make a hoax video.

I visited the halfwit's channel and found a few interesting videos.

Look at that. Monetized drone videos. Fucking hypocrite. Crybaby bitch. Kelly Shaw needs to suck it up and put on his big boy pants. He should take it on the chin, man up, and just admit he was duped. It would likely have been less painful in the long run.


The problem with Shaw's alleged complaint is...well...it seems to be full of shit. A big huge pile of shit. Either Shaw is lying, which has been proven several times in the past, or the person he spoke to at the FAA is just as incompetent as Shaw.

My friend S,teve Alcorn, posted this in the Coalition group on Facebook, so I thank him for this information.

Model Aircrraft Operations   <<<Link

Judging from hardpack101's video, he seems to be within the guidelines mentioned above.

Once again, it looks like hardpack101 is within the law. His video was made for shits and giggles. So what if it's monetized? (Click his video). His video is for recreation. It's not like he was hired to take aerial shots of the Empire State Building for Architect Digest  or some other magazine. THAT would be for commercial use. Nobody hired hardpack101 to make a hoax video.

Kelly Shaw just needs to shut his big lying yap. His big mouth gets his dumb ass in to trouble every time. He's a baby and a bully. Nothing more. Oh. He's a lying hypocrite as well.

If I got a dollar for every time I was threatened with the law, I could buy a fancy Starbuck's coffee. Not that I'd want to buy their overpriced shitty coffee though. I'll take Tim's any day. Double double.

Kelly Shaw is an Idiot

I am sitting here drinking a beer and I am almost at a loss for words. The sheer stupidity of this is almost beyond comprehension for the truly sane, critical thinkers. It's poetic and funny...very funny. On the inside I'm laughing so hard that my side truly hurts.

An alleged Bigfoot video popped up on YouTube recently and when I saw it, I immediately thought it was a hoax. A few too many red flags for my tastes but what do I know, I'm not an expert like some of the asshats in Bigfootland like Kelly Shaw, faker of the weasel photo...I mean Marten photo. That in itself was a gong show. Shaw has already proven himself to be a liar. Incompetent twatwaffle is only one step away.

As evidenced below, Kelly Shaw is a liar, and possibly a bit of an idiot. He was butthurt with the Bluff Creek Project so he had to make shit up in order to get even.

How do we know he was lying? Below is the truth, right from the photographer.

Today is one of those days where blogging becomes an absolute joy for me. I enjoy it more and more with every key stroke. I'm still laughing and can't stop.

Anyway, back to the alleged Bigfoot video. Here is the original video that brings us to the shit show of today.

Next up is the "follow up" by Mr. fucking  know-it-all. Mr. "my dead fallen tree is a Bigfoot". Mr. "my 40 ft. tall shadow in the trees is a Bigfoot". Left to his own devices, Mr. stump hunter can become a severe detriment to himself. Like today for example.

I could only skim through this video because Kelly is embarrassing himself so badly. I saw nothing in the video that clearly resembled a primate-like footprint. An impression in the ground is NOT proof of anything and nothing was ruled out. Must be Bigfoot.

I am a member in a group that takes a lot of shit from people who think we are raining on their parade. That's not the case at all. It's called evaluating the evidence and coming to a rational conclusion based on where the evidence takes us. In this case, and many others like it, this one screamed hoax.

The subject was so small and the clarity of the screenshot was so poor that this "Bigfoot" is inconclusive at best.

Some people get butthurt when their cognitive dissonance is messed with. Voicing any objective opinions are frowned upon. Logic gets you blocked. Rational thinking gets you labeled a troll.

Want some cheese with that whine?

Kelly Shaw the bigshot found "so much Bigfoot evidence", according to the above nonsense. How the fuck would he know what is Bigfoot evidence? Apparently Shaw doesn't know anything as it relates to Bigfoot. His video is glaring proof of that. He sees things that are not there. Here is the video that proves that.

Golly gee-whiz, would ya look at that. A video that confirms what we have been saying from the start.

Shaw even ignored Dr. Meldrum.

More importantly, this video shows us that we shouldn't believe everything we see. Proof is needed to confirm anything that might be a Bigfoot. A crappy video, blurry pictures and subjective opinions are not proof or facts. Neither one prove the existence of Bigfoot.

I wonder how Mr. jabber jaw will 'splain away this one.

Question everything.

EDIT TO ADD:

EDIT AGAIN TO ADD:

The guy planted evidence? Sure he did. Liar.

SOHA Found!

Once again the boys from the Bluff Creek Project give us something substantial before 2015 comes to a close. Jamie and Steven have been hot on the trail of the location of Matt Johnson's SOHA location since at least this past summer.
  Johnson repeatedly mocked and taunted the duo, telling them that they would never set foot at SOHA (or something like that). It looks like Steven and Jamie have the last laugh.

 I won't do too much talking because the photos and videos speak for themselves. The only reason I am posting this is because I heard that the team at Johnson's Facebook group have been busy deleting all references to the site being found. Tsk, tsk. What a totalitarian approach they have.

According to Steven and Jamie, there are houses within a mile of this deep-in-the-woods location and dogs could be heard barking from the site.


Here are a couple of videos of the men at SOHA. Steven has many more videos on his Coalition page on Facebook.Coalition for Critical Thinking in Bigfoot

EDIT:
        
" FINDING SOFA group here, especially Mitchell Wilson, who was the one who finally located the site on Google Earth. There are a number of others. I'm just waiting on for permission to name them. With us at first were Chris Burbick and "Anonymous," then expanding to include Phil Poling, Mitchell, Richard Allen (Special Cuntsultant), and Kirk Brandenburg. Many anonymous sources helped our group along, some of them inadvertently as they are TS-USA minions. Rictor Riolo and ScoutLee Finch helped, and hooked us up with some other sources. It was a very WIDE NET we used to catch this bird with all the clues good and bad."

                             ~Steven Streufert

Questioning the M.K. Narrative: Bluff Creek Bigfoot

M.K. Davis has created quite a stir with his latest video and his claim that he unknowingly recorded a Bigfoot at Bluff Creek. M.K. has gone so far as to post two enhanced videos of the subject and one video explaining how he came to record the video in question.

 Anyone who knows me, knows that I question all evidence and I never take any evidence at face value. It's in my nature to break it down in every aspect. If there is a crumb trail, I will follow it. Well, I found a few crumbs.

  I can tend to be long winded and this might be one of those times because I think it's important to be thorough.

For those who have not seen the alleged Bigfoot video, here it is, as posted by M.K. Davis. All copyrights belong to the copyright holder. Videos and screen shots are used for educational purposes, commentary and criticism purposes only.

I won't post the enhanced videos but I would like you to watch this video where M.K. Davis explains the events that led up to his alleged Bigfoot video.

M.K. drags this video out a bit by covering two months worth of trips to Bluff Creek. He is including a lot of other information in order to give his Bigfoot video some legitimacy, in my opinion. He seems to be going through an awful lot of effort to show what he thinks is Bigfoot activity. The fact is, there is no evidence of that. Broken trees happen for a variety of reasons.

When I go to the woods I come across broken trees all the time. I even come up to groups of broken trees and here is a shot I took a few months ago to prove it.

There are about five or six trees in the foreground that are all broken at about the same height. So what you might say. Exactly, says I. I think M.K. is just trying too hard to convince us that was a Bigfoot.

In the above narrated video (this seems to be a new theme) explaining what happened, Mr. Davis goes on to say they found a lair but in the original video, there is no mention of any such thing. There is a lengthy shot of water trickling from a hillside and then the video cuts away to show Don talking about a deer skull. Likewise, there was no mention of any prints in the original video.

Have a look for yourself. I believe this video was recorded in October of 2008. It's what M.K. says at one point in the video.

This video turned out to be a gem. When I was watching the narrated video and it got to the part with the culverts, I knew I had seen it before. I went to M.K.'s channel and dug until I found the exact video I had seen a couple of years earlier. I used to be quite the M.K. Davis fan but not so much now, sad to say.

I watched the video hoping to find anything in it that would be helpful to this new claim of a recorded yet unseen-by-his-own-eyes Bigfoot. I have recorded hundreds of hours of videos and not once did something this close go unnoticed by me. The human eye is wonderful for detecting movements and shifts in colours, among other fantastic things.  I simply can not buy the notion that M.K. was standing in a creek, recording in front of himself and he didn't notice this being to his right.
M.K. is in a shaded area with no sunlight in his eyes. I find the odds of him not seeing the thing to be astronomically beyond belief.

Davis then goes on to say that he walked by the beast and never saw it. He surmises that the critter pulled a branch down in order to conceal itself from the human. I am to believe that M.K. sloshed down the creek and this massive beast just sat there and didn't move. Perhaps it lost its fight or flight instincts, who knows for sure. All I can say is that I have never seen a large forest animal just stand there when a human gets that close to it. The animal will charge or it will flee but that's my experiences.

Another thing I would like to know is why M.K. cut his video in half. It kind of ruins the context of the situation. The ten or fifteen second video is actually closer to thirty seconds. Don't believe me?
See for yourself.

Once again, am I supposed to believe that M.K. was within yards of a Bigfoot that was apparently washing up with a cloth and this creature was completely unaware of M.K's presence for thirty seconds or longer? Am I supposed to believe that Mr. Davis didn't see the creature either?

What is easier for me to believe is that M.K. recorded his friend at the edge of the creek washing his hands and getting ready to head back to the truck. It also seems to be the most likely explanation.
Seven years is a long time to try to recall events that happened, especially when one doesn't know that they experienced an event in the first place.

Lastly, why didn't M.K. answer two people on his channel that asked who the figure was? There were only four comments below the video so it's not like he couldn't see it. Does M.K. not read his comments? I know I read all of the comments I receive. I may not answer all of them but I do read them. You Tube notifies the channel owner via email and/or Google+.

If you would like to check for yourself, here is a link to the video and the comments: Bluff Creek 2008


I admit that I am not the best at enhancing videos but I made only one adjustment to the video in hopes of exposing any details not seen in the original.

 Full video at normal speed:

First half of the video slowed down and zoomed:

I see what appears to be a human in a reddish coloured shirt who could possibly be wearing a backpack. The resolution is poor but I very much doubt that this is a Bigfoot.


Why dredge up a thirty second video from seven years ago when the originally posted two year old video only had 1,945 views?


Oh.....um.....never mind.

Question everything.