Ultimate Bigfoot Footage That Proves Todd Standing’s Critics Were Wrong — and Lying

The Faces in the Forest: A Journey Into the Most Controversial Bigfoot Footage Ever Recorded

I never planned to make a video about Todd Standing.

In fact, for years, I actively avoided his name.

If you’ve spent any amount of time in the Sasquatch research community, you already know why. Todd Standing is one of the most polarizing figures in modern cryptozoology. To his supporters, he is a fearless explorer who captured some of the clearest footage of Sasquatches ever recorded. To his critics, he is a fraud, a hoaxer, and a man whose work deserves nothing but ridicule.

.

.

.

And yet, after my own encounter in the Canadian wilderness in September of 2024—an experience that shattered my assumptions about what is possible—I realized something uncomfortable.

If I was serious about finding the truth, I could no longer afford to dismiss evidence simply because it made me uneasy.

So I did the thing I had been putting off for years.

I went straight to the source.

A Footage Everyone Loves to Hate

The footage is infamous.

Two faces, staring out from behind branches and shadows. Eyes that seem too wide. Expressions that look uncannily human—and at the same time, deeply alien.

The internet decided long ago what these images were.

“Bad prosthetics.”
“Cheap masks.”
“A guy in makeup.”

And most damning of all:

“That’s just Todd Standing in a suit.”

The accusation became so widespread that it hardened into assumed fact. Memes were created. Morphing images circulated. Entire PDF documents were written to “debunk” what many considered the most laughable Bigfoot footage ever released.

But something about that certainty began to bother me.

Not because I believed Todd.

But because belief—either way—should never come before analysis.

So I approached this investigation with a simple rule:

No speculation. No rumors. No echo chambers.

Only evidence.

Meeting the Man Behind the Camera

I sat down with Todd Standing for a remote interview, prepared to challenge him directly.

I didn’t soften my questions. I didn’t protect his reputation. I brought every major accusation I could find and laid them out one by one.

The most infamous accusation came first.

“Jake,” I said. “The Sasquatch in Video Five. People say that’s you. That it’s your face in prosthetics. What do you say to that?”

Todd didn’t hesitate.

Instead, he did something unexpected.

He reached for science.

The Needle That Changed Everything

Todd pointed out something I had never noticed before.

In several frames of his footage, there are clearly visible conifer needles in the foreground—specifically Rocky Mountain Douglas fir needles.

These needles, he explained, have a critical property:

They are remarkably consistent in length.

Whether the tree is five feet tall or eighty feet tall, the needles measure between one and one and a half inches long. This consistency allows them to be used as a natural measuring tool.

I was intrigued—but skeptical.

So I decided to replicate the experiment myself.

I imported a still frame from Video Five—Jake’s face—into image analysis software. I zoomed in on a single needle. I drew a line from base to tip.

One inch.

Then I cloned that line. Placed it end to end.

Again.
And again.
And again.

When I reached the far edge of Jake’s head, I stopped and counted.

Fifteen inches.

Let that sink in.

The average adult human male head measures between six and seven inches wide.

Jake’s head—based on the most conservative measurements possible—was more than double that.

And it got worse.

Jake wasn’t facing the camera directly. His head was turned at an angle, meaning the apparent width we were seeing was actually less than the true width.

This wasn’t a mask.

It couldn’t be.

No human skull could fit inside something that large.

Jane and the Second Confirmation

Skeptics might argue that Jake was a fluke.

So I turned to Video Four.

Jane.

Another face. Another controversy.

This time, the needles belonged to Engelmann spruce—native to British Columbia. Their lengths vary slightly, but still average around one inch.

I repeated the process.

One inch at a time.

Thirteen inches.

Again—this was a minimum estimate, with Jane’s face also angled away from the camera.

Once more, the proportions were completely incompatible with a human head.

At this point, coincidence was no longer an explanation.

The Eye Spacing Test

Still, one argument refused to die.

The infamous morphed image.

A side-by-side of Todd’s face and Jake’s face, blended together until they appeared nearly identical.

“This proves it,” critics said. “Same face. Same man.”

So I examined it.

Carefully.

I took a clean, unaltered screenshot of Todd from my interview. Then I analyzed facial ratios—something used in forensic anthropology and facial recognition.

In humans, there is a remarkably consistent rule:

The distance between the eyes is approximately equal to the width of one eye.

I tested this on myself.

On Todd.

On random human faces.

Every time, the same result.

One eye-width.

Then I applied the same test to Jake.

The result stopped me cold.

Jake’s eyes were nearly two eye-widths apart.

Not a variation.

A fundamental anatomical difference.

Even if you ignored the head size entirely—even if you pretended the needles didn’t exist—this alone made it impossible for Jake to be Todd.

Different skull architecture.

Different species.

The Morphing Illusion

So why did the morphed image look convincing?

Because morphing software doesn’t prove identity.

It forces resemblance.

I overlaid the morphed image’s “Todd” with a real, unaltered image of Todd.

The eyes matched perfectly.

So did the nose and mouth.

But the head shape?

The older image had been digitally widened, stretched, and warped.

Someone had altered Todd’s head to fit Jake—not the other way around.

It wasn’t evidence.

It was manipulation.

But What About the Hair?

Critics weren’t done.

They pointed to differences between Jake and Jane.

Jake appeared heavily furred, with hair rising into a sagittal crest. Jane seemed smoother, almost bare-faced in places.

“If they’re the same species,” skeptics argued, “why do they look so different?”

Todd’s response was simple.

“Put me next to my wife.”

Sexual dimorphism exists across nature.

Male gorillas develop massive crests and muscle bulk. Females don’t.

Orangutans show even more dramatic differences.

Why would Sasquatch be any different?

Lighting conditions, Todd explained, also played a major role. Jake was filmed under cloud cover, revealing fine skin texture. Jane stood in direct sunlight, washing out details and creating the illusion of smoothness.

When anatomical landmarks were compared—eye spacing, nose structure, jaw shape—the similarities were undeniable.

Different individuals.

Same species.

The Animatronic Argument

At this point, critics shifted tactics.

“If it’s not Todd,” they said, “then it’s animatronics.”

Robotic props.

Hollywood-level special effects.

One widely circulated document—a “critical examination”—claimed the faces showed signs of artificial construction: unmoving eyes, seam-like lines beneath the nose, unnatural lips.

But once again, context mattered.

Primatologists have long noted that many animals freeze their gaze under perceived threat. Jane Goodall herself observed that chimpanzees avoid eye movement to prevent escalation.

Todd explained the conditions under which Jane was filmed—melting snow dripping onto his lens, limited time, intense focus.

And when viewers slowed the footage, pupils were visible.

As for “seams”?

Dry skin. Natural creases. Scars.

I found countless images of humans and primates with identical features.

If those faces were fake, then so were chimpanzees.

Why Only Faces?

Another common criticism:

“Why don’t we see full bodies?”

The answer was painfully simple.

Because earlier footage did show bodies—and people complained.

They wanted faces.

When Todd delivered faces, they demanded bodies again.

But the environment never changed.

Dense forest. Rocks. Gullies. Limited angles.

Jane was positioned in a trench-like formation. Only her head could emerge safely.

Jake was partially obscured.

Todd pushed closer every time—until pushing further meant risking everything.

Corroboration from the Field

Still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary support.

That support came from others.

Including Dr. Jeff Meldrum.

A professor of anatomy and anthropology.

He described footprints larger than Todd’s own—deeply impressed, heavy, and unmistakably bipedal.

He described night-time encounters. Vocalizations. Branches breaking.

No costumes.

No hoaxes.

Just presence.

The Personal Attacks Begin

When evidence fails, character assassination follows.

Todd was accused of owning ape gloves.

Of having family connections to Hollywood makeup artists.

Of secretly working in special effects.

The truth?

A crushed child’s gorilla glove from a Halloween costume.

A sister falsely accused of a career she never had.

Claims repeated endlessly, never proven.

Because lies spread faster than facts.

The Man, Not the Myth

After hours of conversation, something became clear.

Todd Standing does not behave like a liar.

He behaves like a man exhausted by ridicule.

A man who keeps showing his work.

A man who invites scrutiny instead of hiding from it.

He gave me footage.

Answered every question.

Held nothing back.

And that matters.

Because liars avoid the light.

So What Are They?

I can’t tell you what Sasquatches are.

I can’t tell you where they came from.

But I can tell you this:

The faces in Todd Standing’s footage are not human.
They are not masks.
They are not animatronics.
They are not digital creations.

They are something else.

Something watching us from the forest.

And perhaps the real reason this footage unsettles people so deeply…

…is because, for once, the evidence refuses to look ridiculous.

It looks real.

And that terrifies us.