I've been away working on various projects for the last few days and have not been able to address the questions that were posed on this thread until now. Thank you all for your interest in what we're trying to do here and your criticisms, I will be addressing each post individually over the next couple days, so if I don't get to your immediately it is just due to the general time constraints I am currently under.
Question for Ken. If as Todd Standing's camera man and documentarian you say that you haven't seen enough evidence to make you a "believer", then how do you expect the rational world to bite off on this thing? You seem a bit surprised at the critical response that's been posted on this forum from lack of substance, and yet you acknowledge it yourself!
First I honestly believe this individual is a mark from some other, more negative propagating forums and have sourced his IP to verify this fact. I welcome any post, but some from the Truth as of late has a clear ulterior motive fortifying it.
To be blunt I have never expected anyone to "bite off on this thing"; I'm not here to demand explorations of faith concerning the existence of Bigfoot, or Gigantopithecus. I am not a snake-oil salesman, and have never offered anything on this forum, or the site that could not be fortified by fact, (
though some of the posts have indicated that the full measure and breadth of my posts have not been understood properly or taken fully into consideration). As a documentarian I approach every subject with a critical eye and if I am unable to do so then I don't do the project. I am a firm believer that ANY documentary filmmaker worth their salt is ALWAYS critical of their subject matter, and always neutral allowing for the possibilities on both sides of the issue or thing. If they are anything but the aforementioned then they are propagandists, plain and simple. All we have attempted to do is offer information and background concerning the subject focus of the site, and specifically Todd’s experiences and explorations of his time in Sylvanic.
I became a part of the Sylvanic Project well after the videos were captured (
almost 3 months), and was in fact first brought on strictly to verify their authenticity. I was critical at the time I examined the videos and remain so to this day as that is a main fundamental of my job.
You speak of about the lack of substance on the site, but I must then self-reference back to the mention of “people not understanding the full measure of the contents of this site”. Todd has culled together countless stories concerning the Sylvanic region, backed up statements he has made here and through various media outlets with hard science, (
all able to be web searched or found in scientific text/published papers) and presented it all over the site. He has given dates, offered traceable information, and brought together a number of varied schools of thought that had not been done before. This isn’t the Todd Standing raw-raw chant but actual fact that is in writing all over the web site and in the videos we have online. The videos themselves are farther reaching substance than has been offered by a myriad of other Bigfoot hunters, and blows doors on the highly publicized videos of recent memory. With all this as incontestable fact, then the question begs to be asked: What substance are your referring to?
Video 03 which everybody keep clamoring for? As for that it is up to Todd when he wants to release it over the net, until then I completely agree with his tact of keeping it exclusive to the documentary.
The location of Sylvanic? I still don’t know the location of the area, and it matters little to me. I have heard Native Elders, in their own language, speak of Sylvanic in interviews and thus substantiate Todd’s claims of its history and relevance. But what would be there now? Scenery, mostly. If you believe Todd’s claims, then the area was compromised and infiltrated and Bigfoot would be long gone. If you’re skeptical of Todd’s claims then you’d see a lot of great mountains and forest but little else. So what would be the point other than testing Todd? None. So Todd not giving out the location makes perfect sense and had nothing to do with validating his story because, as I stated, there is nothing out there either way you look at it.
Clarification on the Dan Hamilton Incident? Todd spent a year, as did I, working exclusively on the Dan Hamilton issue and footage attempting to glean the smallest bit of truth from it all. We finally agreed there was nothing there. If its relevance was cut and dry and important to the overall issue of what Todd is doing then we would have made that available. As a documentary filmmaker you have to make hard decisions on what makes sense to include in a project and what doesn’t, sometimes that means you jettison an entire year of your life (
which trust me isn’t an easy decision) to add clarification to your point. There was resistance to completely abandoning the issue with the various incarnations of the documentary, but we kept cutting more and more out because we found it confused the hard science we were attempting to present. Finally we just came to conclusion that the Dan Hamilton Incident had nothing to do with what Todd is attempting to accomplish and completely cut it from the documentary. Todd may, if the issues with the families involved ever get resolved, release some of the footage he has and the multitude of interviews we conducted over the year we worked on it. Until then it has become a non-issue for Todd, and not something he wishes to discuss. Whatever his reasons they are his, and his alone, and no amount of prodding will cause him to change his mind, (
though it will probably fortify his reasons for keeping mum on the whole issue).
The name of the individual killed in Southern Alberta? This issue is utterly pointless in my opinion. Ian Punnett is one of the most unprofessional individuals I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with, and I never spoke to the man. He attempted to force the name out of Todd when Todd clearly stated to him he would have to speak with the family first and get their permission. If a “Journalist” cannot understand that, then plain and simple he is a hack and nothing more than a tabloid scab. There is a thing called
journalistic integrity, where REAL peoples emotions, and REAL tragedy are not exploited for profit (
which is exactly what Ian was attempting to do). I cannot state this enough: I support Todd for his steadfast conviction to honoring the wishes of the family over just bending to the public clamoring for blood even though it has lead to a backlash like I have never seen. It makes me physically sick that certain peoples curiosity is more important than the victims family. To continually attempt to force this issue is despicable at best, and illustrates the epitome of bottom feeding subculture. Pity, and utterly pointless.
What I acknowledge isn’t your inferred “lack of substance” but the general possibilities of both sides. I am neither for nor against. I am skeptical because I did not film the footage and have not seen Bigfoot with my own eyes (
though I have interviewed countless people who swear of a stack of bibles that they have seen Bigfoot themselves). I acknowledge the hard science, the countless papers and text that state the existence of Gigantopithecus, of Native Art depicting Bigfoot and more. I acknowledge the need for clear footage, for 1080i quality images and that even the best video in the world will NEVER be enough proof. In short I acknowledge learned thought.
This all being said I will say that certain posts have certainly drawn a new focus and standard concerning the content being released. It will unfortunately take more time, but I hope that due to the additional time we take the information we present will be more focused and succinct.
This has a very, "Blair Witch", feel to it along with a bit of, " Michael Moore Against the Mounties", flavor. You must remember that the general public is extremely educated in the ways of entertainment and the media and is very hard to fool as we have seen it all in many different forms time and time again. Fancy [verbiage] and the use of terms such as, "expeditions", "hard science", and "kinetic analysis", just doesn't garner respect anymore without any kind of real proof. Also the ploy of Todd showing how selfless he is by repeating over and over that all proceeds go to the animal shelter gets a little old.
Your statements belie you intent in this regard. You quote openly from another forum which propagates negativity, and a post from an individual that purportedly saw the first showing of the documentary, (
an individual I may add that stated he would report back on how crappy the film was even before he supposedly saw it, does that sound like an open mind to you?). Between the first showing (
November 2006) and the last (
May 2007) more than 97% of the documentary has changed; the new footage is all “hard science” mixed with the struggle Todd has endured over the last 5 years. I don’t really see the validity in your statements, other than being spiteful and as previously stated, your intent to promote another persons opinions as your own.
The use of terms. A trek out into the wild to explore is called an
Expedition. Widely accepted and uncontested scientific data is called
Hard Science. The study of bipedal and human motion is called
Kinetics, and the application of this science is called a
Kinetic Analysis. As these are the correct terms associated with the actual happenings, how else would one succinctly state it?
The use of
ploy in regards to Todd’s donating his proceeds to the Humane Societies is insulting, and again belies your intent. Todd volunteered at Humane Societies for years through his teens and into his young adulthood, it is an issue that he has always been passionate about long predating his exploration of Bigfoot. It was his want, something NOBODY in the Bigfoot community has EVER done. There is no ploy, but think what you will, it matters little as the only two people who matter in this equation is the Humane Society and Todd, and they’re both happy.
...the possibility of national recognition and turning a garage concept into an international cash cow... Of course you'd be along for the ride, Ken...
This is just insulting. I make more making one commercial than I have in two years with this. And even if I do make money on it, does that somehow negate my position or undermine my statement? I run a business sure, but really what the hell does that have to do with the cost of tea in China? Nothing. Each of the Four Horsemen made a fortune off Bigfoot, does that somehow discredit them? Todd has not been in it for money, when I accepted the job I accepted that I would
never see a dime from it. In honesty I would be shocked how anyone could make money in Bigfoot nowadays, between all the hoaxers out there and all the people who want everything for free why would anyone think there is money in this venture? I’ve been in this now for two years and as I said I make more money on one commercial.
So I hope these answers help others view this thread, I certainly didn’t post it for
The Truth as I banned him earlier today for his increasingly juvenile conduct on the forum.
As I stated I will be implementing a more rigid standard for the media content that we will be releasing hereafter. My hope is that the extra time we take with the videos to follow will help in clearing some of the questions concerning Todd and his information as well as add clarity to the upcoming explorations we will be conducting.
Thank you all for your time.
