Breaking: Glimpse of Exclusive New Sasquatch Footage From Todd Standing


Alright, folks. Are you ready for this? Todd Standing is now raising money for a brand new species protection program and some of that money will be going towards a full 90 minute feature film on sasquatch. In the 90 minute film will be 5 videos, including the one you're looking at above. Granted, it's just a thermal footage, and Standing probably has better footage. Knowing him, he's probably deliberately leaving out and saving it for the big reveal. The clip is from a series of clips taken from the new promotional video on Kickstarter asking for $900,000 in contribution to finish the project. If you haven't seen it watch it below:



Here's what the documentary entails:

This 90 minute feature film Documentary showcases live interactions with Sasquatch that are so significant Todd intends to use them to petition the government of the United states for legal recognition and Protection of the Species Commonly referred to as Bigfoot. The documentary features... 1. Five never before seen Bigfoot videos including the life and death struggle that was necessary to acquire them. 2. Two PhD's ( Professor Jeff Meldrum PhD of Idaho State University and wildlife Biologist PhD John Bindernagel) experiencing live interactions with Sasquatch. As well as an eye witness accounting. 3. An altercation between Todd Standing and 3 Sasquatch that ends in brutality. 4. The first step towards final proof of the species with DNA evidence. Todd Standing will be attending his first ever public conference "the Sasquatch Summit" on November 22nd and 23rd. There he will begin collecting signatures for his petition for species protection. On November 25th Todd will be showing 40 minutes of his 90 minute documentary in Seattle at the AMC Pacific theater. There he will also be gathering signature for species protection of Bigfoot. Todd has placed his documentary up on Kickstarter. He will be using the proceeds from the sale of this feature film to fund the 2015 Bigfoot expeditions that will result in absolute proof in the species once and for all.

[via KickStarter]

Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Gets duped by footer promoters ^

      Delete
    2. ^ get's brainwashed by psuedoskeptics indefinitely.

      Delete
    3. Because believing in bigfoot is the normal thing to do? Get a grip.

      Delete
    4. The normal thing to do is to look at something with impartiality and reserve judgement until one attains facts... However crazy the concept.

      Delete
    5. Perhaps he is DSA. Perhaps he is. There are folks that are going to see this as shameless self promotion and a "money grab". But allow me another perspective. How many people have come forward with a time table to "prove the species ". This is a very bold position to take. People clamor here daily for proof. Where's the proof they cry? But when some people step up and want the funding to meet the challenge and actually have a pair big enough to proclaim that as the end game, discovery and nothing short, well, whether I like it or not I'll learn to love it. I'll count on him to meet this challenge. At best DSA you should hope he gets the funding. Ahead of schedule. And therefore there will be no excuses if he doesn't "discover and protect the species ". In doing so you will have removed all excuses for a very real future attack if he doesn't produce as promised and promotes. For nothing is more devastating to an individual than a failure to meet their own lofty standards. Until then. Sit back and enjoy the popcorn and as Aaron Rodgers welcomed "relax". :)

      Delete
    6. We all have standards DSA. When I meet a woman at the closing of a bar she has to breathe "oxygen" and I prefer she expels "carbon" in some form. Those are mine. Yours may be atmospheric in height. You may want a Bigfoot interviewed live on simulcast TV. You may hope that "his hair was perfect " I can only hope you have the patience to give people the opportunity to meet their own goals as identified by their standards before they attempt to share, whatever their motivations, the fruit of what their standards produce. Hmmm, fruit. I'll have a peach while we wait. Maybe even a pear (pair ?).

      Delete
    7. Epic slapdown Mike B!!!!!

      Delete
    8. Well said Mike...look he's going to provide video and DNA it's going to be what the Erickson project should have been...thanks to Rush for his hand in this

      Delete
    9. Thanks to Rush...and thanks to my brother Rummie for whom I shall toast and then retire for this evening. Brookreson raises near empty bottle: ....."Here's to the wine .....here's to the glass......and here's to the grizzly, that bit Jim Bridger's ass!" Night old friend. :)

      Delete
  2. The usual "promotion" with zero actual evidence. Are footers even trying?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You want the actual evidence that the promotion is promoting in the promotion?

      Don't get into marketing my friend.

      Delete
    2. Science doesn't work like this I'm afraid Joe.

      Delete
    3. Who was talking about science?

      Gun, well and truly jumped... And don't get into how science works, I've given you more than your fair share of meltdowns over it.

      Delete
    4. Well if you are going to prove a new species then you go through the field of SCIENCE not marketing. Jesus f*ckin Christ how dumb are you?

      Delete
    5. That was not your point though was it? The point in question was that someone, in your expectancy, should reveal evidence in a promotional snippet prior to the medium even being completed I might add.

      You don't know what level of scientific evidence is going to be revealed, and even if there will be sufficient evidence to fall under such a category.

      Gun, well and truly jumped, Einstein.

      Delete
    6. Todd Standing is a joke. If he was able to raise that kind of money, 899,999.99 would go into his pocket and he'd be overseas somewhere.

      Delete
    7. If the BFRO idiots believed that Standing's evidence is fake, then its definitely fake, lol.

      Delete
    8. Yeah... Moneymaker who backed Matilda'll call it right!

      (Pffff)

      Delete
    9. I think videos turning out to be fake just points out the number of hoaxes out there. It would be great if people didn't hoax, but so many do. BFRO and many other believers have a confirmation bias.

      Delete
  3. The thermo footage is probably the best your going to see of any new footage.

    Filmmakers always put the best in the advertising and save the worst for after you have handed over your hard earned cash.

    And again with the protect what hasn't been proven.

    Really Todd?

    How Ketchum of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The thermo footage is probably the best your going to see of any new footage."

      Is you name Mystic Meg? Or are you hoping?

      "Filmmakers always put the best in the advertising and save the worst for after you have handed over your hard earned cash."

      I would suggest you stop paying to watch second rate films like Fast and Furious. You want the actual evidence that the promotion is promoting in the promotion?

      Not that I think these subjects need protecting, how do you know that Todd hasn't got a means to request financial aid towards applying for protection?

      People need to relax and wait and see what he's got.

      Delete
    2. Joe why are you defending standing? Shameful.

      Delete
    3. I'm not defending anyone, I'm stating facts against a hate campaign. If he hasn't got anything once all this is out then nobody will have more to say about it than me.

      Don't come across so threatened man, if he hasn't got anything then why the apparent panic?

      Delete
    4. You have been defending standing and his Muppet footage for months. You have zero credibility at this point.

      Delete
    5. Nope! I've been asking you to provide me a reason to agree with you that Standing is a hoaxer.

      You've only ever called me names and failed to prove your points under anonymity, you have zero integrity at this point, I won't even get into credibility.

      Delete
    6. http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/analysis-in-todd-standings-blinking-bigfoot/

      http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/source-of-the-analyzed-capture-is/

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_rk7apQtOKWajBLdVlZeEwxZHc/edit?pli=1

      Conclusion: HOAX!

      Delete
    7. "People need to relax and wait and see what he's got"

      You sound just like the idiots on FB/FB right before "Shooting Bigfoot" came out.

      Delete
    8. Well th Poling thing was countered here;

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      And as concerning Kulls, I found this comment back in April very interesting;

      "AnonymousSaturday, April 26, 2014 at 1:00:00 PM PDT
      Steve Kulls "analysis" is a joke.

      -Mr Kulls claims an ISO of 100 means "you're in need of longer exposure time, and not a good setting for what Standings was doing. WRONG!

      On a nice, sunny, day, using an ISO of 100 should be fine, except for maybe shooting in a really dark, shaded area (which it wasn't.) And even then you could get a good shot by opening up your aperture and slowing down your shutter speed.

      The truth is; Standing probably had his camera set to Auto, which means his camera would have taken care of all this.

      - Kulls incorrectly used the common photography term "depth of field." And instead said "field of depth."

      This is camera 101, day one stuff. No camera enthusiast worth their salt would confuse that, especially an expert like Kulls is claiming to be.

      And probably his most inexcusable mistake of all: Kulls said:

      "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."

      Someone should explain to Kulls that 1/30 means that the camera's "shutter" is set to expose the film or the camera's sensor for 1 - 30th of a second (which is pretty slow,) and has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with miles per hour or panning. (this guy is WAY off)

      Steve Kulls might be an expert at other things, but photography ain't his bag. "

      Conclusion: not enough data to satisfy someone who's practicing proper skepticism.

      Delete
    9. 3:54... Nargh, it just means people like you would most definitely not be around should you be put in a situation where you eat your words later on.

      Delete
    10. With someone who uses multiple aliases and anons?

      What would be the point?

      : )

      Delete
    11. What are you talking about? How can I use multiple aliases and anons when I only leave comments under anonymous? You do know that "anonymous" isn't an actual handle and more than one person comments under it right?

      Delete
    12. Besides, only someone stupid enough to give money to Todd Standing would make a bet with a welcher like you.

      Delete
    13. 6:11... That's just it, Einstein, why would I make a bet with someone who posts under a means to just reappear with the same vomits? You're only angry cause your effort at making another typically snide comment got smashed by something far cleverer.

      ; )

      Delete
    14. Einstein must be your word of the day. Only someone that gave money to Todd Standing would think using that word made them smarter.

      Delete
    15. Only someone with a sheer lack of any intelligent counter argument to the imediate subject matter would revert to conjuring up imaginary scenarios, like a child, shame you can't be more creative with the topic at hand.

      Einstein.

      Delete
    16. Will this anon ever tire of getting owned?

      Delete
    17. ^ Thinks the U.S. government pays me to comment here while claiming others conjure up imaginary scenarios.

      Delete
    18. Not... You're not clever enough to employed by anyone of the sort, that's why you're resorted to conjuring.

      Delete
    19. Standing has better footage.

      More close up facial view with moving features.

      It will be CGI or mask of course but nothing mind blowing as it's already been turned down by the networks.

      MMG

      Delete
  4. you've got to be joking me
    thermal images of muppets ?
    plum loco I tell ya
    no leg to stand on
    Joe has been fooled by fozzy bear
    beguiled by big bird
    Bamboozled by Ernie and Bert
    outdone by Oscar the grouch
    Jim Henson must be turning in his grave knowing this Tod Standing character is making a mockery of his beloved puppets !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And for all your creativity, you have it fundamentally wrong from the outset. I've said tirelessly, innumerable times, if Standing's images are muppets, then please just show me, help me to conclude on what my initial thoughts in concurrence were. None of us have seen a Bigfoot that close up, and I need to better source of skepticism to confirm that.

      I just have better standards of skepticism than you.

      Delete
    2. The fact that you can't tell that Todd images are hoaxes means you have no "standards of skepticism".

      Phil already destroyed Todd and his muppets. The fact is you just can't accept that they are fake. You are blinded by your faith in the squatch that nothing would convince you. Even if Todd came out and admitted they're fake and showed you the damn mannequin you still wouldn't believe it.

      "But but but he's got Meldrum and Bindernagel on board!"

      Well guess what, they are either in on the hoax, or they are complete retards.

      Delete
    3. "if Standing's images are muppets, then please just show me, help me to conclude on what my initial thoughts in concurrence were"

      Here's a start:


      http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/analysis-in-todd-standings-blinking-bigfoot/

      http://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/source-of-the-analyzed-capture-is/

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_rk7apQtOKWajBLdVlZeEwxZHc/edit?pli=1

      Delete
    4. Nope! The FACT is that a well known SFX expert stated he couldn't rule them out as hoaxes, this is something very significant that swayed me... Now, true skepticism keeps asking questions, it doesn't stop at a conclusion that does not take into account the opinions of those who know better than ourselves.

      I like Phil, but he did nothing of the sort I'm afraid, and based his conclusions on inaccurate data;

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      ... Every angle has been addressed with the only issue Dover concurring on being the lip space, and considering we know little of potential variation of age ans appearance within the species, this could be attributed to such. The FACT is you appear to have a major issue with what others think, and also what others think of others; this is a self esteem issue, quite clearly.

      My alleged 'faith' is imagined, because I am waiting to be convinced on the matter. This'faith' is not even a reality, it is something someone like you has concocted in order to discredit and attack. Basing judgement on inaccuracies and a sheer lack of facts, now this is faith. All I request, is you show me a source that categorically proves that those images are indeed fakes, and show me that my initial feelings were indeed correct... Poling's work doesn't do that, and I will not drop my standards because some spoiled little brat has momi issues.

      If Todd presented major evidence in the coming year, you would merely deny it and cling to an unfounded claim to hoaxing previously that you cannot reinforce, now that is a far more realistic scenario than anything you can conjure with that little imagination of yours.

      You forgot Stroud in that list, and considering you're just an anon that has insults and unfounded claims in his locker, I don't think any of them will be losing sleep about that any time soon.

      And you still haven't proven any of your points.

      : )

      Delete
    5. F*cking hell Joe get a grip

      Delete
    6. Get an argument that stands up, I would say.

      ; )

      Delete
    7. Come on kiddo, it'll be a landmark of growing up should you make the effort and look at all the information...

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      Delete
    8. Oh! And regarding Kulls' 'analysis'... I also came across this comment from Goodfoot at Cryptomundo that really swayed my mind also...

      “While I put away my Canon digital camera some time ago in favor of the challenge of iPhonography, I seem to recall that I could choose to set it to take photos in BOTH RAW and .jpeg formats. To me, this would explain the photo being in .jpeg format. But the RAW version should also have been provided for analysis.

      I want to make it clear I hold no brief whatsoever for Todd Standing. In fact, I regard him as a fraud of the rankest sort.”

      ... This later being confirmed by someone called PhotoExpert on the same comment section;

      "The short answer is, yes it can be done. Not only is it possible, it is probable, even for an amature photographer to accomplish this."

      Delete
    9. Ok... Let me break it down to the level of child to help; Poling's 'critique' came first, Dover's analysis of such coming second. What that means is Dover's points that expose every single one of Poling's as inaccurate, are awaiting to be countered, resulting in your source, at this stage, being bunk.

      Don't make me post large extacts showing precisely what I mean.

      : )

      Delete
  5. can we please get M kdavis to break down Todd standings footage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure there will be several folks, some better than others breaking down a whole lot in this forthcoming movie. Like my good buddy JOE, I will reserve my judgement for then. All I know is early last spring both he and Meldrum were excited to no end about something that happened, shall we say up North, and held back talking about it. I would assume it will be revealed at both the conference this weekend and in the movie. I much look forward to watching and finding out.
      The time is near.
      Chuck

      Delete
    2. Joe is already convinced the footage is real.

      Delete
    3. MK Davis only analyses footage he can claim is real (err.. you be the judge) so maybe he thinks the muppets are too obviously fake to bother with?

      Delete
    4. Have you given any money to Todd Standing Joe?

      Delete
    5. ANSWER THE QUESTION

      YES OR NO

      Continue to evade and we'll just assume you're too embarrassed to admit it.

      Delete
    6. You post your name as that, and then demand an answer that you cannot provide your self?

      We're clearly not dealing with Einstein here are we?

      : )

      Delete
    7. As opposed to the Einstein that gave money to Todd Standing? Did you buy a copy of "After The Shot" as well? Hell I wouldn't be surprised if you were a platinum Tracker member. In fact, I'd expect that of you.

      Keep dancing around the question monkey boy

      Delete
    8. Look at it like this... I'm not the one making up imaginary scenarios because I've run out of relevant arguments.

      : p

      Delete
    9. I have an imaginary friend. I call him Beryl and I blow him up each night.

      Delete
    10. "I'm not the one making up imaginary scenarios because I've run out of relevant arguments"

      HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

      That's ALL you do!

      Delete
    11. ... Still waiting for a counter argument to what was put to you... I might add...

      ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

      Delete
    12. Still waiting for you to ANSWER A SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.

      Keep dancing monkey boy...

      Delete
    13. Joe has said previously that he paid for standings documentary so the answer is yes

      Delete
  6. This jackass actually expects to sell 60,000 copies of this stupid hoax of a movie.

    60,000!

    I know there are a lot of idiot footers out there but 60,000? He's even pulling Dyer's old trick of refusing to release the movie until they are all sold. What a pathetic looser.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welcome to bigfootery:)

      Roll up roll up.

      Delete
    2. Unreserved judgement based on preconceived attitudes to unforeseen evidence;

      Welcome to skepfootery!

      Delete
    3. His previous hoaxes are all the evidence I need to discredit him.

      Welcome to critical thinking!

      Delete
    4. By the way, how much have you donated today Joe?

      Delete
    5. If his previous work are hoaxes, that's great, I agree they could indeed be, just show me how he hoaxed them bro, ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    6. READ:

      https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_rk7apQtOKWajBLdVlZeEwxZHc/edit?pli=1

      Delete
    7. Have done a long time ago, now you do the same;

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      ... Come on, grow a pair and look at the wider information, nothing will hurt you.

      : )

      Delete
    8. I have and concluded that Falconer and Poling's evaluation to be infinitely more plausible. If you can't see that then there really is no hope for you. You truly are hopelessly deluded.

      Delete
    9. You lie... You haven't even read Poling's, you haven't the literary patience son. Every point addressed in Dover's paper... A delusion would be to base adamancy on inaccurate data and Subjective assumptions. One day you'll grow a pair.

      Delete
    10. Hey Joe let's say you are faced with a choice between believing someone's bigfoot claim or not believing it when there is insufficient evidence to say either way (say for example it is a blurry video). Would it not make more sense to reject any claim that could not be proven rather than to accept claims that may be false, until someone somewhere can prove they are 100% proven fake? If this is the way you think (correct me if I am wrong) it doesn't really make a lot of sense given our lack of solid knowledge on the subject, and the rampant level of hoaxers/fakers/crazy people reporting all sorts of bigfoot bizarreness on a regular basis.

      Delete
    11. Nope! Because you are assuming my stance on the matter is swayed wither way of the fence. You are also assuming that I have accepted anything before it can be proven false, when I have stated quite clearly, VERY clearly in fact on numerous times that my feelings on the photos are merely waiting to be confirmed by a source that can stand up to the same scepticism, these feelings in concurrence with everyone else who is critical of them.

      Correct ME if I'm wrong, but if you think that something should be perceived false because there are examples of such being falsified, then in theory, and in all impartiality, you should take into question many of the pillars of widely accepted fields... This approach seemingly a suppression of evidence fallacy, when considering also your statement regarding what we know about this field, which is in fact a lot more than what you come across ready to acknowledge...

      But that would be ASSUMING A LOT now, wouldn't it?

      : )

      Delete
    12. The difference between Joe and a skeptic is that Joe will not change his position on the subject ever. For joe bigfoot is 100% real, no ifs buts or maybes. A skeptic on the other hand will happily change their position if evidence is presented.

      Delete
    13. I have no requirement to change my mind on the matter of the subject's existence, because there is simply too much evidence for it not to be, to which I am convinced... And to alter that would be an effort at brainwashing.

      Regarding various forms of evidence however, I have indeed been wrong before (not many times) and have even changed my mind about, but good science and proper skepticism self corrects.

      "But rather than suspending judgment, they attack all opposing claims. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means. A "true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides including their own beliefs. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but."

      ... Kind of like your unsuspended judgement of me on your part and the immediate subject matter in question.

      Delete
    14. Oh... And the difference between me and a 'skeptic', is I don;t stop asking questions when it suits my preference of conclusion.

      Delete
    15. A zero integrity looser calling me a liar because I disagree with him.

      Priceless.

      Delete
    16. Actually I was thinking generically rather than this example (Standing's muppet heads) but I accept your stance on those. However I DO think it is reasonable that something should be assumed false until otherwise proven when (a) it looks false (unnatural look and movement as a whole), has (b) unusual and unexpected specific characteristics (dead eyes, muppet felt-like skin/hair and apparent join above the lip), (c) a suspicious back story (overly complicated hike in to the area and description of day watchers, Standings links to movie production, etc), (d) can't be proven to be an actual living animal (no evidence they live anywhere other than dodgy stick structures and possible footprints) and (e) is inconsistent with prior understanding of bigfoot (nobody has previously reported the muppet-like appearance before and nobody has captured high resolution head shots before, but he somehow did it twice with two different animals). The Standing footage has a lot of reasons to be suspicious about it so surely in this case 'fake until proven true' would be the appropriate attitude?

      Delete
    17. Bro, when you're not using my vocabulary, you really just provide more and more evidence that you're really not that good at this.

      (Sigh)

      Delete
    18. It's very much reasonable, and you must remember (I am relaying this for maybe the 20th time) that I am not maintaining anything else regarding the authenticity of the photos, I merely require a means to verify those feelings. I can doubt the photogpraphs and express that to my heart's content, but I can't call Standing a hoaxer because I don't have conclusive data to warrant such an accusation, and to me those photos look as if they COULD be real regardless of my initial doubts, in line with the opinion of someone who has ten times the experience of SFX than me. It's the same way I can't celebrate those photogpraphs as genuine, because I've never seen a Sasquatch that close up (excluding Patty).

      a) this was addressed by the same SFX expert and he couldn't rule this out. The blink has been slowed down significantly and makes it look considerably more unnatural.
      b) the eyes of the darker subjects could quite easily be due to a lack of filming duration being displayed, whilst the eyes of the lighter subjects he's allegedly filmed move considerably. The felt-skin affect is in fact perpetrated by a photoshopped version of one of the photos that has nothing to do with Standing (made by a fan).
      c) The hike into the area would be natural considering the terrain that these subjects reside in and this to me is just suspected, whilst one ex-researcher allegedly sold out on Standing to which the research area was compromised. This means that he is deliberately cagey about who he reveals this area to in future, whilst his 'movie production company' is merely an effort at getting work as a documentary filmmaker so as to not be linked to Bigfoot research and be prejudised against. Day watchers has no negative connotations at all to me, and is in fact an embraced theory by many enthusiasts.
      d) nobody is suggesting otherwise, though having stick stuctures verified by someone like Stroud, who's got ten times the experience of us is significant.
      e) In fact, this comment is subjective. I know of eyewitnesses who have stated the photos appear very much like their encounters, and some people may look at those photos and feel that they don't look like muppets, notably not being ruled out as such by an SFX expert. Also... It is a major fallacy to condemn evidence purely because it has been successfully accumulated. If that's the case, how is the field meant to evolve? We also cannot account for variation, if you look at multi-ethnic communities (not that I'm claiming there's communities in Sylvanic) you may have an issue explaining to someone from Mars they're of the same social group.

      The Standing footage has a lot of reasons to be suspicious but none of it is without a countering explanation and simply not enough reason to sway open minded people to approach the matter as 'fake until proven true' especially that he now has the attention of the wider research field, and yet to be released evidence that may yet prove to turn a lot of people's heads... Subjective versions of 'prior understood Bigfoot' and conclusions on inaccuate data is not an adequate basis to form such a stance in theory of correct skepticism.

      Delete
    19. I think you had it right the first time.

      Delete
  7. Hey Joe...I just read this comment about you on another post: "You may be Welsh but you don't live there." Wow, this blog is so educational. I didn't know Welsh was even a PLACE!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha ha ha ha ha!!! The downside about a blog that allows you to post anonymously, is you get some pretty creepy Einsteins floating about.

      Delete
    2. Go post on the BFF then^

      Or is it that you already have an account there under another name? Likely yes.

      Delete
    3. Persecutory delusions are also a symptom of paranoid schizophrenia, which is a 'sub-type' of schizophrenia. Sometimes, people who are given a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia may see themselves as being particularly important in some way, and may believe this is the reason why they are being persecuted.
      People may be given the less common diagnosis of 'delusional disorder' if they experience persecutory delusions but do not experience hallucinations.
      Anyone who experiences persecutory delusions is likely to withdraw from other people to try to protect themselves, and to avoid situations where they may feel threatened, like their basements or as close as possible to their home's desktop computer. They will probably spend a lot of time by themselves, worrying about their fears and especially what they fail to keep under their control, such as theories that threaten their security in society. If someone believes that other people are intent on harming them, they start to interpret actions and events in a way that confirms their beliefs, rather than considering alternative explanations... This can manifest in maintaining people who frequent social sites have in fact multiple aliases for different sites and are out to attack them and cause unrest and hostility for hidden agendas.

      Delete
    4. So says the guy who thinks there are people getting payed to argue about Bigfoot with him. That's delusional. All because of economic interests.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Lulz, that link just *has to* mean that there are shills in Bigfoot land. You know because of things like logging and admission to state parks.

      Nobody I have seen here is good enough to be paid- doesn't stop you from having "persecutory delusions". Get a grip, Joe. Those alien abduction/ancient alien arguments seem delusional to everyone else.

      Delete
    7. Anyone would think you're rattled?

      If you'd even opened the links, racism requires very little intelligence, not that I'm accusing you of anything of the sort, but it means a level of intelligence even as low as yours could be considered 'good enough' for these creeps. Persecution delusions like thinking I'm an admin to influence traffic, or that I'm American or from the BFF, yeah?

      (Cuckoo!!)

      Now there's some delusions son.

      Delete
    8. Oh Joe, I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people know that you are a gullible and devoted footer. That would include those who rattle your cage. There's no need to pay anyone, regardless.

      Now as to how much you have given to Bigfoot con-men, that's a different story.

      Delete
    9. I'm pretty sure that this vast amount of people wouldn't care what such an uncreative insignificant like you, boyo, would have to spew about it considering you're so devoted to rectifying how much I've bullied you around in the last two years, almost... And this is what's been so hilarious from day one of this stuff, is people just like you ignoring precisely what I've been openly skeptical about purely because you need an angle to make up for just how butthurt you are for that two years I've played on your emotions.

      : )

      Delete
    10. LOL, you have been here nearly two years??? I knew you posted all hours of the day, but that length of time?

      Openly skeptical in your world means embracing. How about alien abduction, alien tracking implants (supporting quack doctors), ancient alien theory, general conspiracy theory about all types of coverup, cyrptids of various sorts, an on and on.

      Let me tell you something Joe, something you apparently don't get. Very few are convinced about your arguments. People aren't butthurt, they're amused. You have a lot of passion and ego and just enough intelligence to hang yourself. You're a target because you can't help yourself. You are an interactive amusement that constantly delivers. If you were smart you would ignore the trollish comments, but you just...can't. It might as well be a crack pipe.

      Delete
    11. No, 'openly skeptical' to me really actually means what it is; a state of inquiry that doesn't stop at a preconceived or preferred conclusion. A 'quack doctor' that out of all your efforts could only source dribbles that never once addressed his alleged evidence (never did get back to me on that, did you?), Ancient Alien theories that I've actually posted links debunking 80% of, specifically megaliths and Sitchin... And conspiracies that I can promote with hard data; namely paper trails from scientific big hitters and statements from contributing parties. Whilst the only cryptid I can safely say I have interest in is big cats in the UK. When you're failing at the imediate subject matter, when you're failing at showing how much of a lack of credibility I have, when you're failing at delivering anything but sheer accusations & hate, you're pushing versions and lies about what I endorse that is merely evident of what you're resorted to. This is simply a sheer lack of intellgiece on your part.

      If very few people are convinced by my arguements, then why do you state they are every day? Are you confused again? Would you like me to post where you've contradicted yourself YET again? No, you're butthurt, so butthurt that you need to follow me around and try and convince everyone DAILY that I'm a bad character... And please, anyone who's contradicted himself so embarrassingly, so cringingly shouldn't even be thinking of suggesting anyone else is hanging themselves.

      I'm a target because like every poster who's ever come here, evil little kids like you have tried to drive them away and largely have... The difference is I've got twice the intelligence and twice the patience of you, and it clearly infuriates you. If I am amusement, it doesn't come through in your comments too convincingly, no one so preoccupied with getting nasty and defecating on people's characters, so hopelessly having their failures pointed out could find it remotely amusing. You're right on one thing though, I just can't help myself, this ego didn't arive in a day you know, it's been at the expense of a few little people just like you, and there'll be another ten, twelve, a long line that can join the cue once you've gone and decided to stick to Call of Duty.

      And you still haven't proved any of your points.

      : )

      Delete
    12. First of all, I don't think I am who you think. I do sometimes read the comments, however. How presumptuous that you can deduce anonymous posters, but you are so intelligent right?

      I am not here every day, how ironic you of all people to make that challenge. I don't have to make presumptions on that, Joe. I agree, you have more "patience" than me- however we are talking about an obsession you have. You own up to it like it was an honor badge (I like my crack pipe description better). Don't confuse it with intelligence though, bro.

      I have (and many others) have debated these points before. I admit I just haven't got the will to do it over and over, although I will take time to point out your short comings.

      Has anyone ever had the last word with you joe, seriously?


      Delete
    13. My apparent lack of intelligence but such an obvious avoidance to challenge me on the subject matter on your part?

      My 'short comings' are in fact you having your behind handed to you way too often, and that's why you're so preoccupied with my character. Someone with such big talk and no walk says one thing to me...

      : )

      Delete
    14. Lulz, what part of not desiring to debate you over and over do you not comprehend? I and so many others point out that you lack true character and are obsessive to major fault.

      I could keep replying to your message and I'm fairly certain you would just have to have the last word till next year.

      Delete
  8. His goal of getting protection is his lifelong ambition. It is a very very worth goal and a most daunting one indeed. It might be easier to achieve state by state starting in the NW.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His goal of fleecing gullible footers of their hard earned money is his lifelong ambition. It might be easier to achieve state by state (TOUR) starting in the NW, where there would be more bleevers.The parallels to Rick Dyer are uncanny.

      Delete
    2. Stop crying and wait and see what he's got... If he has nothing then Chuck, along with myself will be the first to criticise, just because someone has grown up patience and reservation doesn't mean their gullible.

      Delete
    3. People who give money to hoaxers are gullible.

      Delete
    4. People who give money to starving kids in Africa a gullible.

      Delete
    5. Can somebody tell me the average evaporation once you reach strike temperature and mash?

      Delete
    6. ol mr GRASSMAN be eetin tham shiiners mash an gettin drunk

      Delete
    7. ans tham mexicuns bes aeatin ats tham dennies ans gits tham jobs shure do

      Delete
  9. If someone has actual proof of the existence of a new species that MANY people worldwide are actively interested in I suggest he would have no trouble getting financial support from one of the many wildlife organisations, educational institutions or similar who make it their business to study and preserve animals. Trying to fund a film that is reportedly already 6 weeks from completion to the tune of $900k smells a little hinky to say the least. I predict the 40 minutes of film released on November 25th will show nothing convincing and in my opinion there is zero possibility of funding this kickstarter campain.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Looks like joes fantasy monkey man is being exposed as a non existent entity... Again. Poor guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Must have missed that... Do you scream in the mirror naked when things get too much?

      Delete
    2. I like to dress as a school girl and do that with stockings on.

      Delete
  11. Damn I have never witnessed Joe being so butthurt about a ludicrous bigfoot claim.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the claims get more and more ridiculous people like Joe look more and more silly for defending them.

      Its pretty funny that to end it all, all that needs to be provided is a single actual bigfoot. This never happens of course and we all know why.

      Delete
    2. Quote me, don't joke me kiddo... Too much COD and no fresh air makes Jack a very dull boy. Oh, and plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      ... None caught.

      : )

      Delete
    3. Damn.

      PJ is getting obliterated today.

      Delete
    4. By PJ you must mean Perfect Joe. Do not believe he is feeling any pain from the likes of you and your minions. But keep telling yourself that. It is OK now to go bang your head on the closet wall and repeat to yourself that blankity blank joe, that blankity blank joe, that blankity bland joe.

      Delete
    5. 6:20... I'm waiting for a counter argument to the points I posed up top, didn't you notice?

      Bigfoot Educator... Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
  12. Bill Munns won't even say patty is a bigfoot. I mean, what's that all about then? He just says patty is not a man in a suit but won't commit to saying its a bigfoot. Erm what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is acknowledged that the possibility of a fur costume is not absolutely excluded from consideration by this analysis, but that if the PGF hominid were in fact a human in a fur costume, such a costume, and the padding underneath that fur cloth, must have been tailored with expert skill and deliberate design to achieve the effect of these contours of the skin and adipose of an aging and overweight female hominid (and disregarding other aspects of anatomy such as limb proportions, kinematics of the foot, proportions of the head that contradict the man-in-a-fur-suit hypothesis, which will be addressed elsewhere). In 1967, such skill in tailoring furcloth was rare and the few practitioners who had such skills were in the highest echelon of professional craftspeople, and were veterans of the film/theatrical industry. The man who filmed the PGF
      hominid, Roger Patterson, had no such skills and had no proven connection or association with any person of such skills. Nor did he have documented financial means to employ such persons to work on his behalf. Furthermore, the costumes of the era (1967) were either intended for comical theatrics, in which case little attention was paid to anatomical realism, or when such costumes were intended for dramatic theatrical ventures where realism was required, they were designed to portray powerful, threatening or frightening creatures, dynamic and athletic in form. Therefore, a superbly realistic costume designed to look like an aging and slightly overweight female has no precedent in costume design for that era, or even in the decades that followed. Therefore, purely from a standpoint of consideration of the PGF hominid’s anatomy, as compared to both actual human surface anatomy and great ape anatomy, and further compared to fur costume design and form, the
      resemblance to real anatomy is not only apparent but prevails as the more probable explanation for the nature of the PGF hominid. These observations support the conclusion that we are not observing a costume, but rather a real and novel hominid whose body has a modest natural hair coat."

      - Bill Munns

      Delete
  13. Who the hell would even be talking about this if Meldrum wasn't involved? The man is treated like the be all end all of Bigfooting for some reason.He has more ass kissers than Dr.Johnson and that's not just sad its scary.....but I digress...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that Meldrum is involved in this hoax destroys any credibility he ever had. Sad really.

      Delete
    2. Au contraire Mr. Brain up in smoke and 6 22 in hiding. Brings tremendous amount of credibility. I'm sure this scares you guys to know end.

      Delete
    3. Meldrum has the attention and input of people like Jane Goodall, Ian Redmond, Anna Nikaris, Zhoua Guoxing, Lyn Miles, Jeffrey McNeely, Chris Loether, Colin Groves, Esteban Sarmiento and none other than George Schaller (I wonder how many primates have been discovered between all them?)
      Go and check out their resume's and ask yourself how credible you are 6:22...

      Sad really.

      Delete
    4. If 7:25 was a real educator, they would KNOW basic spelling. LOL

      Delete
    5. That is how bigfoots spell know. Know what I mean

      Delete
    6. I love the "none other than George Shlarrer" line like people know who he is. Wasn't he the old whacked out loon in Legend meets Science crap from Don Jeffery?

      Delete
    7. No... He's the PhD that's recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation Society.

      He's got a foreword to that 'crap' too. Glad I could help.

      Delete
  14. TODD STANDINGdoes indeed have the best footage ever!

    ReplyDelete
  15. From Forbes:

    "The ranks of the world's billionaires have swelled to a record 1,645 including 268 newcomers"...

    Plenty of people out there with money - maybe one of these folks can throw a few sheckels out there for old Todd.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Wow! Real gripping video you have there

    ReplyDelete
  17. People who tend to work hard for their money don't throw it away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama throws billions away!
      WHAT UP WITH THAT !!!

      Delete
  18. I agree with Joe, just wait and see for yourself. Why all of the namecalling? Slowly breathe in and out and count to ten.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Some here know Rush and if he says it's good that works for me

    ReplyDelete
  20. I cant believe it took this long to scroll to the bottom of this trainwreck they call a comment thread. All this name calling and hateful disrespect is gross. This is why i dont come here often, and virtually never read comments. Use ur damn name, or stow ur opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Todd seems to have already cast doubt on the authenticity of his work by including the 3 faces that are the work of his makeup artist.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story