Todd Standing: Finding Bigfoot Team and Producers are Morons

We recommended Todd Standing for an Oscar back in 2010

Thanks to the folks at TheCryptoCrew.com we were able to get Todd Standings reaction to the Finding Bigfoot Canadian episode he starred in. As the cast of Finding Bigfoot were less than impressed with Todd's evidence, research and over all account of his experience, it seems Todd wasn't impressed with them either.

We are proud to say we probably have the most comprehensive coverage of Todd Standing. Some of our most popular are: Todd Standing Jumps the Shark with Expedition 4, The Original Todd Standing "Sylvanic" Website, and Why don't Journalist Just Google Todd Standing?.

Read Todd's reaction to the Finding Bigfoot below and watch what Todd considers "Good TV show" coverage of his adventures.

"Well congrats to the "Finding Bigfoot' team and producers. After being on hundreds of newspaper, radio and tv interviews and shows, the finding bigfoot production is the worst I have EVER seen. Their production company is Called"Snake oil productions" for a reason. They have no intention of finding bigfoot and they couldn't possiblly be stupid enough to believe they could. They literally filme...d me in a spot they choose where cows are grazing all around. And they couldn't even sneek up on the cows! That is what the morons are hearing "in the Candian wilds" that they cannot identify. They are right when they say it is not coyotes making that sound. Its cows they are hearing. That is what happens when you go bigfoot hunting by a ranch you idiots. I could right a list of 500 reasons these people will never film a deaf three legged moose in live action. Never mind Bigfoot."

"Here is a link to a good tv show that did a real piece on my bigfoot work."

Cliff Barackman Publishes Field Notes for Finding Bigfoot Canadian Episode

Todd Standing and Cliff Barackman (Photo Credit: NorthAmericanBigfoot.com)

"Questioning Todd further, we found that he was unaware of the elevation of the Sylvanic location. He said that he never paid attention. This, if true, would be a very dangerous thing to ignore..." -- Cliff Barackman

Cliff Barackman has published another detailed-rich  Finding Bigfoot Field Notes. His latest post is based on the recent Canadian episode which originally aired on January 23rd, 2012. Below is a short excerpt covering the Todd Standing portion of Cliff's notes we recommend reading the whole thing At Cliff Barackman's Official Blog.

Excerpt from Cliff Barackman's post "Finding Bigfoot - Alberta, Canada Field Notes"

"Todd is a very polite and well-spoken man. I genuinely liked the guy, as well as his message regarding sasquatches: protect them, and let them be. He has taken great strides to increase the public's awareness of bigfoots through his actions. While these actions are labeled as self-serving by his critics, the fact that attention was brought to sasquatches is undeniable.

Todd currently lives in Calgary, but he lived several hundred miles away when he obtained his videos at Sylvanic. He told us that he could not take us to the actual spot because it is a three-day hike back to this secluded valley, and the last day would be spent belly crawling up a river bed in a specially designed gillie suit made by Todd himself. He went on to say that nobody wants to be back there because of the problem grizzly bears that inhabit that area. He claimed that the rangers say there is a 10% chance of being killed by a bear while in the area, and it was too dangerous to go. It seemed to me that a bunch of hurdles were put in the way of anyone wanting to see the location for themselves. Todd did offer to take anyone there who wanted to go at a later time, but it would take a week or two for the trek.

Questioning Todd, I soon learned that at this time he had five videos that had bigfoots in them. The first video is apparently only a sound recording with no images of sasquatches (I didn't get to hear the recording). We investigated video number two, with the creature quickly bending over out of sight while above Todd on a hill. His third video shows what is either a bigfoot or a man in suit running on a hillside. This creature is the same brownish orange color as the creature in video number two. Video number four is a close up of what appears to me to be a bigfoot puppet behind some branches. Its dark eyes stare unblinking off to frame right, and there is very little movement visible. The skin appears very much like felt, and its fur lacks the flow pattern that one would expect from a living creature. Video number five is a similar shot, but with a much more convincing bigfoot head. It slightly resembles Patty from the Patterson/Gimlin film, but with a rounder face and more dog-like nose. Over the last month or so, there seems to have been another still released showing this same head, but possibly from another film.

I asked Todd what was up with video number four, the one that looked like a Muppet head. He said that he does not know why it looked so bad. He suggested that the lighting might have made it appear that way.

We were to be investigating his second video, the one with a brief glimpse of a creature bending down facing away from the camera. The video is very brief, but it seemed that it showed something bipedal and hairy. An arm and even possible buttox muscles can be seen, or are at least suggested. We were to rely solely on Todd's measurements since we were unable to go to the actual film site. This would be problematic for our reconstruction, as going to the actual film site is very important for a sense of scale.  Trusting someone's measurements when you're trying to find out if their film was hoaxed makes little sense anyways, but it's all we had to go on.  

Todd claimed to have not even believed in bigfoots at the time he obtained his second video. It was his film flip that convinced him they were real. This was very peculiar to me because he claimed to have made approximately a dozen trips to the location trying to film a bigfoot by the time he got his video. He chose Sylvanic as likely bigfoot habitat, and he even developed an intricate theory of sasquatch social/family structure, all before he believed in bigfoots. I personally don't believe that griffons exist, and I don't plan expeditions based on how they would live (if they were real) to see if I'm wrong...

Questioning Todd further, we found that he was unaware of the elevation of the Sylvanic location. He said that he never paid attention. This, if true, would be a very dangerous thing to ignore, as we would soon find out during that night's investigation (it snowed on us in August). How could Todd have chosen a location, planned his hikes in (most likely using topographic maps), visited a dozen times, and not noticed the elevation? This seems very unlikely.

When investigating a film, I sometimes think of the late Rene Dahinden and his comments on the Patterson/Gimlin Film.  He said that what you need to know is in the film.  Certainly, Rene would think that the context of a film is very important, too, but I like to examine films starting with what is actually seen.  Good films stand on their own, and their context only serves to reinforce or put in doubt a clip's authenticity. 

With so little to go on for video number two, I am left with not knowing what is in it. The film looks like either a bigfoot or a guy in a suit bending over. Since there is very little information to be gleaned from the actual video, I have to rely on the context. Todd was unable or unwilling to go to the actual spot, there were inconsistencies in his story surrounding the clip, and there's that Muppet face staring, unblinking in film number four... These leave me with serious doubts about what is shown in any of his videos.

Expressing my concerns to Todd, he correctly stated that video will never be enough for proof. How true. Todd goes on to say that only a body will ever suffice. As much as I hope this isn't the case, it could very well be the grizzly truth at the end of the bigfoot mystery."

SRC: NorthAmericanBigfoot.com 

Skeptic Benjamin Radford: If You Spot Bigfoot, Should You Shoot Him?

Benjamin Radford Arguing against the possibility of Bigfoot

"Ethics and the lethal-or-nonlethal debate aside, there's a good reason aiming your gun at a Bigfoot could be a bad idea: It might be illegal." -- Benjamin Radford

In a previous post titled, "Skeptic gives Top 10 why Bigfoot does not exist," we share Benjamin Bradford's top ten arguments against the existence of Bigfoot. As a contributor to LifeLittleMysteries.com, Mr. Bradford argues against shooting Bigfoot. Probably good advice, but on average, people ignore it once out of every four years. Read our article titled "Humans shoot and kill Bigfoot on average of once every four years" to see the list of Bigfoot shootings.

If You Spot Bigfoot, Should You Shoot Him?

Benjamin Radford, Life's Little Mysteries Contributor

Date: 20 January 2012 Time: 10:20 AM ET

Ben Radford lectures at CFI West

In the new Animal Planet reality TV show optimistically titled "Finding Bigfoot," a team of experts examines video of an alleged Sasquatch spotted in the Canadian Rockies. The video, shot by a man named Todd Standing, shows something large and dark, standing atop a wooded ridge and then ducking back behind a bush. It could pretty much be anything, and when the experts concluded that the subject was probably not a Bigfoot, Standing expressed his frustration: "No video is ever going to be evidence, ever. It's never going to be good enough…"

Standing, like many Bigfoot researchers, misses the problem: It's not so much that any Bigfoot video is inherently worthless, it's that his video, like all that have come before it, is of such poor quality that there's no way to know what we're seeing. It could have been anything – a guy in a dark jacket (or gorilla costume), a bear or even Bigfoot. The fatal flaw in Bigfoot photos and videos is the image quality, not the image subject. If Standing, the "Finding Bigfoot" team, or anyone else shot well-lit, clear video of what was obviously a 12-foot-tall, hairy bipedal creature in the woods, that would be compelling.

But even the highest-quality photograph or video can't be considered definitive proof of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or any other mythical beast. Similarly, if the goal is to simply make scientists and the general public take Bigfoot seriously, then some verified remains of the creature – be they hair, teeth, blood, bones or something else – would do the trick. [Infamous 'Yeti Finger' Flunks DNA Test]

But definitive proof is a very high standard. Most Bigfoot enthusiasts — and the general public — would be satisfied with nothing less than the rock-solid definitive proof offered by a living or dead specimen.

 This issue brings up a longstanding debate within the Bigfoot community: Would be ethical to shoot and kill a Bigfoot? Some say yes, because that's the only way to prove they exist, and once proof is found, funds could be made available to protect them as an endangered species. Others say no -- that because Bigfoot sightings are so rare, they must have very small populations and killing one might drive the animals to extinction. Shooting a suspected Bigfoot with tranquilizer darts is an option that has gained some steam.

Ethics and the lethal-or-nonlethal debate aside, there's a good reason aiming your gun at a Bigfoot could be a bad idea: It might be illegal. A Texas teen shot what he believed to be a Chupacabra earlier this year, and while charges were not brought against him, if the creature turned out to be someone's dog or a mangy coyote, he could potentially have faced a felony charge.

The point is, you simply can't know for sure if the mysterious, burly figure you have lined up in your sights is the real beast, or a bear or someone's pet – or, even worse, just a person in a gorilla suit.

Benjamin Radford is deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine and author of Scientific Paranormal Investigation: How to Solve Unexplained Mysteries. His website is www.BenjaminRadford.com.

SRC: LifesLittleMysteries.com