Controversy has plagued Todd Standing since the release of his purported documentary Discovering Bigfoot; from accusations of silencing critics to profiteering to skepticism of the motivation behind two lawsuits claiming to prove the existence of Sasquatch.

The latest release to question Standing's ethics comes in the form of an article being circulated on social media; the article was shared in the form of a link to Google Drive, under which it is owned by "rockiessasquatch," but was uploaded and edited by Tyler Huggins. Huggins is a Bigfoot researcher who in the past has written extensively on Todd Standing and his claims of captured cryptozoological evidence.

A screenshot of the document's ownership and modification history.

The author of the article, who is not explicitly named, claims to have interviewed people directly involved in "Standing's film efforts," and said that those interviewed were reportedly "shocked that the public believed that any of Todd's claims were real."

Below is the text of the article; including embedded links to a previous article on Google Drive, along with various outside sources, which the author included in the original document.

This article falls under the protection of "Fair Comment", "Qualified Privilege", "Responsible Communication of Matters of Public Interest", "Responsible Journalism" and the fact that it is "Truth" (Justification).

The following exposé assumes some familiarity with the topics from a 2014 commentary I penned about Todd Standing. Todd’s "Video 2" and "Video 3" played a dominant role in his claims of photographic proof at that time. For many years, "Video 3" was his crowning achievement – the clearest and longest alleged "footage" of any alleged "Sasquatch" he had allegedly "filmed"… um… allegedly. When I wrote that commentary, it was already obvious to many that Todd’s claims were not factual, and that this production was acted, scripted and dramatized. But I couldn’t prove it: I did not know the name of the maker of the suit; I did not know the name of the man in the suit; I did not have any corroboration from the people cited as "actors" in the IMDB entry for this film. I could cite the IMDB entries only as compelling evidence, rather than incontrovertible proof, that his claimed captures of Sasquatch on video were not legitimate. More than once, Todd had asserted to me personally (as he later asserted publically), that the film was NOT acted, NOT scripted, was NOT a re-creation, and WAS in fact actual footage of living, breathing Sasquatch. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, I could not at that time provide incontestable proof.

When I wrote my last article (and Phil Poling, Daniel Falconer and others wrote their articles), Standing seemed to cease his implausible claims and disappear for three years or so. However, I found it very disturbing when I heard that he had recently begun trying to profit from his hoaxed video evidence once again. Undoubtedly due (at least in part) to his claims of veracity surrounding "Video 2" and "Video 3", Todd Standing has been able to compel people to pay approximately $6200 (CAD) per person, to join him on outings into the woods. Evidently, these same claims comprise part of Mr. Standing’s evidence in court cases against governments in the US and Canada. Since these cases will use public resources and tax payer money while invoking what I have been informed is manufactured evidence, I feel confident that my efforts to expose this chicanery are in the public interest.1

Recently, I was able to interview different people who were directly involved in Standing’s film efforts, and "Video 2" and "Video 3". They felt very concerned about several issues: They were shocked that the public believed that any of Todd’s claims were real; They were frustrated that Standing never followed through on paying them for their services; They wanted the public to know that Todd Standing was intent on pulling off a massive hoax related to Sasquatch, and that his end-game was to impress people in the movie industry with his skill at making what they all referred to as a "mockumentary" that would cause the public to ‘willingly suspend their disbelief’. Witnesses relayed to me that they had signed confidentiality/Nondisclosure Agreements with Standing. I provided them with 5 reasons that those NDAs were likely unenforceable,2 and referred them to lawyers; but they are still hesitant to put their names to a full disclosure as of this writing. Because of that, I am guarding some of what they have disclosed, and am not divulging their names at this time – instead, I hereby publically challenge Todd Standing to release from their NDAs, any persons involved in the production of any of his Sasquatch film efforts. Since these productions have already been made public, they are no longer "secret" and therefore Standing should have no reservations about releasing participants from their NDAs. If he has particular concerns about proprietary information such as secret locations, then he can offer a qualified or conditional release that protects that specific information.

The following footnotes were included in the article:

1 For the record, my goal is not to derail public judicial examination of the evidence for Sasquatch, and if it continues with ONLY legitimate evidence, I think it could present an opportunity for public education in a credible forum.

2 1. No economic exchange or consideration (something of value given in exchange for their silence). 2. Failure to perform (non-payment breach resulting in contract becoming null and void). 3. Misrepresentation. If there were claims that signing an NDA would lead to fame and riches, that was a misrepresentation. 4. "Contrary to statutory law" (fraudulent) thereby contravening the principal of "Legal Object", thus causing the courts to view it as unenforceable or to never have existed. 5. "When consent is given by error, under physical or moral duress, or as a result of fraudulent practises, the contract may be declared null and void at the request of the aggrieved party. In certain types of contractual relationship, the law demands that the consent of the party be both free and informed." "Undue influence" (fear of what might happen if they did not sign) would be related to this.

The author also added a short addendum to the end of the article, stating that both the person who posed as Bigfoot for Standing, and the creator of the costume in which he posed, have been identified and hail from Edmonton, Alberta.

*Spoiler alert! I will disclose this much: The person that Todd employed to wear the fur suit is a 6’5" body builder from Edmonton, Alberta. He currently has a respectable position in the field of emergency services. This person was hired to act and perform both in the fur suit and out of it. Film participants can be seen in this clip. The fur suit was made by a woman in Edmonton. None of these hired people acted with any malicious intent. Although most of their names are already in the public domain, they have lives that neither they nor I wish to further disrupt. This exposé is not about naming the people who reached out to me, and/or who were employed to fulfill the vision of Mr. Standing – the blame for false or misleading claims rests with him. Furthermore, Standing claims that ALL of his video evidence has equal veracity. By his own words then, they must ALL be equally fraudulent.

Fraudulent claims hurt the Sasquatch community and hinder the potential for public acceptance of legitimate evidence. In this particular case, they also have a measurable financial impact on the public (for example, those who paid thousands of dollars to go out in the woods with Standing), and on tax-supported courts and governments. They should not be tolerated, and I believe that hoaxes that harm the public should be prosecuted. Claims from fraudulent sources will always be rooted out and rejected by rational sentries within the community. If you or anyone you know has more insight into this situation, please contact me.

Responses from the cryptozoological community have so far been mixed--with some hopeful that the facts in the article that were able to be verified, such as those provided by the embedded links, might lend credibility to those that were not, such as the author's interviews with cast members; while others regard that position as conjecture, and see the claims made as a result of the alleged interviews as little more than supposition until such time as the testimony within may be confirmed.

Update: Tyler Huggins issued a statement to The Singular Fortean Society which challenged Standing to release all documentary participants from any existing confidentiality agreements. Standing has yet to respond to inquiries regarding the challenge.

If you enjoyed this article and would like to support the Singular Fortean Society, please consider becoming an official member by signing up through our Patreon page—membership includes a ton of extra content and behind-the-scenes access to the Society’s inner workings.

Featured