Sasquatch Coffee

Speaking of the Paul Freeman Bigfoot Footage

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 6th, 2013

Cryptomundian dconstrukt brought up the Freeman Footage during discussions of the post: Speaking of the Peguis, Manitoba Bigfoot Video Footage…

the freeman one looks SICK… but does anyone know if its real or a hoax?
dconstrukt

does anyone know about these freeman videos? are these known to be fake? real? anyone know the story behind them?
dconstrukt

but the freeman video…. DWA…. real? bogus? does anyone know? i’m really curious on that one.dconstrukt

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


27 Responses to “Speaking of the Paul Freeman Bigfoot Footage”

  1. gridbug responds:

    I’ve always liked this one, even though I’m not sure if it’s legit or not.

    :)

  2. Dave Cornwell via Facebook responds:

    I’ve always thought this looked fake. The subject looks down at his feet as though looking through a mask so as not to trip. Additionally, the subject stays just outside of a huge treeline which makes no sense for a daylight Bigfoot sighting. The only reason the Patterson subject is out in the open in daylight is that it got caught “flatfooted” and had no alternative but head for the trees. The Freeman subject doesn’t do that.

  3. chadgatlin responds:

    This is one of my favorites too. And I want to think it’s legit, but Paul Freeman is known to have hoaxed other evidence. Still, that doesn’t mean this was hoaxed. I used to think this, the PG film, and the Memorial Day footage were the best three videos out there as far as likelihood of being genuine. I am now more skeptical of this one, and have all but done a 180 on the Memorial Day footage. And believing those two less have made me question things about the PG film, though I still think it’s probably real. If the other two are fake it just makes it harder to fathom that in nearly 50 years that’s the only clear video we’ve got.

  4. Raiderpithicusblaci responds:

    Dr. Meldrum endorses the authenticity of this footage, and so must i. This is a huge individual with a most peculiar gait…Dr. Krantz also speculated on such a gait being what one would expect from a nine hundred pound animal with a sub-tarsal break. This one is just fascinating.What does everyone else think? Hoodoorocket? Springheeledjack? Do chime in, as i value your opinions greatly! Also, in light of the current trend of retro-viewing past footage, can we hope to see the Redwoods footage soon? I can hardly wait!

  5. Kopite responds:

    Always been on the fence with this one. I can’t decide one way or another. It’s not clear enough like the PG footage. I don’t rule it out as being real though.

  6. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ dconstrukt, is that “sick” as in “that is wikki-wikki-whack, hommie, knaw wadum tawkin bout?” or “sick” as in “that furry gentleman seems to be not well. I say good sir, do you require the assistance of a licensed veterinarian service provider?”, lol.

    Is it fake? Well dude, we just don’t know. That is what the game is here. We take off our blindfolds to see what has been placed on the table. We use our observation skills until the buzzer goes off then we put our pencils down. Once all the tests have been collected we are free to discuss opinions.

    Tell us what you see. What have you induced and deduced and be brave enough to state your conclusions. “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer and the one that fits most often.

    Here is what I see when I look at the video, both the pros and cons.

    Cons: the big reveal steals the show, but there is a big build up (the tracks) that would be good not to lose sight of. The tracks cover a lot of varying terrain, but have the same shape each time. They have a very short leg span, and come into the water hole and leave again by the same route. When there was a choice on the easy path between leaving tracks and not, the soft soil was taken the whole way, both ways. There is a sliding track on an incline that indicates a relatively light person wearing a rigid footpad, not an 800 pound monkey with a flexible foot. All of these are suspicious to me.

    In the big reveal the thing looks at its feet often and steps timidly, finding its way through the brush. That points to a person in a suit to me.

    Look at the Patterson film a gazillion times. It is the standard by which all evidence should be weighed. Watch Patty walk, she is a cement truck motoring easily over terrain, always looking at her environment, never at her feet. Watch her feet, they have the mid tarsal break that kind of wraps over and grabs whatever they encounter without the need for looking at her feet.

    Pros: For all I said about the tracks, if they are fakes, they are well done. I like the shape compared to most obvious fakes. The same goes for the suit. If it is fake, it is well above average (ie, not a baggy carpet suit). Note that this doesn’t mean that hollywood experts were involved and millions of dollars spent (as you will hear commentors declare on every clip shown on cryptomundo), just that it communicates well from a distance, mass, bulk, and form.

    I’d say i’m 80% leaning towards fake and 20% towards real deal. In the end, I just don’t know. Also the crappy encode could be redone much better, if the owner of the footage was interested in getting it out there (is there a high def version for sale?). A good encode might point to a real creature or an obvious fake, but we only get to play the cards we are dealt.

    Now get off the fence and tell us what you think about this footage.

  7. dconstrukt responds:

    @Craig. – thanks for posting this dude. :-)

    Now, to the experts here, what the hell is this?

    is this known to be a fake? (i’m asking, have no clue).

    To me, this thing on the screen looks like a friggin’ BEAST.

    the walk seems weird… VERY different type of walk than what we’ve been seeing in these other recent videos, and every different than a human walking.

    but i mean, who the hell knows with these videos… so many jabroni’s running around making hoaxes (still dont get the point of doing them).

    Notice around 1:10-1:25 when the thing is walking (compared to the other recent videos)… this “thing” has glistening on the body… that means there is some type of fur… the others were SOLID, meaning a JACKET. Fur is circular in shape, so each strand hitting light will cast a different shade to the eye.

    would love to hear what you more knowledgeable folks have to say.

  8. volmar responds:

    Well, I’m sure it’s not a black bear… Is it a Bigfoot? I’m not quite sure, it could be a hoax, but I really can’t say.

  9. mandors responds:

    I really miss the FB/FB guys. Whatever they did, they had the best catalogue of these videos. Ironic that what they describe happened to Freeman sort of happened to them too.

    Craig, is there a list of the videos, i.e., Patterson, Freeman, etc.? Not just the top ones which you can find here:

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/01/28/proof-bigfootgroup-releases-top-10-filmed-encounters/

    But all the “good/real” videos. Maybe that’s something CM could put together for us readers.

    A few years ago, I spent a rainy Saturday afternoon looking at what was out there, doubting there was anything to this. What I found was that after the top ten, which everybody should watch, there are a dozen more videos that are “pretty good,” about the same that are “okay.” There are a lot of fake/joke videos, but what’s funny is, is that after you watch the “real” examples, you can spot a fake almost instantly.

  10. Peltboy25 responds:

    I like this footage because it conveys the visual “heft” that you get from the PG film. The subject appears to be thick with natural movement, not the typical “guy in a baggy suit” look where parts are unnaturally out of proportion (head too large, legs too thick in comparison with rest of body, etc).

    Can’t say it’s earth-shattering, but it’s definitely in my “possibles” column.

  11. Ploughboy responds:

    Despite how they apparently crashed headlong into the Dyer hoax…and they rope them themselves to Dyer here in this commentary…I think FB/FB did bring something to the party. But guys, c’mon, do you think you increased your scientific credibility when you can’t even spell “shin?” (And not just once) Sloppy quality control, and if you can’t pay attention to the small details, you just cast doubt on your analytical skills as a whole.

    Great footage though, and I’m at 51% more probable than not on this one.

  12. RandyS responds:

    Okay, a question: FBFB repeatedly points to the “rise, pause, fall” in the stride of filmed or video taped subjects as proof that the subject is non-human. But we humans display a distinct “rise, fall” pattern to our gait — and in a human imitating a lumbering stride, one could easily see how it could become a “rise, pause, fall” motion. Conversely — as has been pointed out by Krantz, Meldrum, and others — many bigfoot witnesses are struck by the smoothness of the creatures’ gait — the fact that they seem to “glide” with little or no up and down motion. And looking at the stablized Patterson/Gimlin film, you can see exactly this very distinctive feature: there is no rise and fall of the head and shoulders as the creature walks. All of the movement is below the waist; all of the “shock” of movement is absorbed by the legs.

    So, which is it? Can we say the rise and fall of the head in videos is proof of anything if the most accepted film proof shows just the opposite?

  13. bobhelferstay responds:

    To me, this is almost as good as the PG film.

  14. cryptokellie responds:

    A little difficult here. My first impression is that of a large guy in a standard gorilla suit especially the hunched back and the “Tip toe through the tulips” gait being used. Also, would a real Bigfoot actually have to look at the ground while it walked? On the other hand, the head when turning to the viewer seems strange and unlike a gorilla mask although it could have been modified.
    Interesting but inconclusive. Add to this the proven fakery of some of Freeman’s other “evidence” and I have think that this is probably a hoax as well. I will say though, for what it’s worth, that this film gives the same uneasy creepy feeling that the PG film did. Not sure why.

  15. EOC responds:

    The fact that Mr. Freeman refers to it as male when he films it and later as female during his interview lends credibility to his story. If it was a hoax, he was the victim.

    I say real.

  16. William responds:

    I see the pros and cons on this film, but one thing I believe also occurred was Dr. Meldrum either made casts of these tracks or saw the real ones and watched Freeman make the casts. At any rate, I believe they were verified by Meldrum as having dermal ridges and he followed them for quite a distance. I also believe he said they showed where the toes dug into the earth when going up and down steep terrain. With that in mind, I throw the volume of evidence towards real.

  17. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting comments…. one thing i’ve wondered… why is EVERY bigfoot video only showing ONE creature???

    do these things not have families?

    they always walk around by themselves?

    That seems VERY bizarre.

  18. cryptokellie responds:

    I hate to “cast” doubt on dermal ridges but, I have been a professional sculptor for over 35 years and work with plaster every day. If not properly prepared, plaster, being endothermic, will fold in on itself and leave stress lines which would look like dermal ridges if you saw them and was unfamiliar with the properties of plaster. Plaster needs specific ratios of water to plaster mix to set up right…probably not exactly possible in the field. Add to this, mixing the material with a spoon or paint stick almost insures an improper mix and inferior result. In my studio, I mix plaster with an electric drill and mixing ring and depending on the model needs, mix the solution for 2 to 3 minutes…then hand stirring out the air bubbles. Throw in the unknown properties of bare ground conditions outside and you start to understand the issues. The videos that I saw of plaster being used in the field with a bad – too thick or too thin – mix told me that an accurate, detail capturing cast was not going to happen. The “Skookum Cast” seems to have been excellently cast considering the size and conditions although probably an elk.

  19. chadgatlin responds:

    Something I just noticed: When the subject turns to look at the camera, it looks as though it only turns its head. If we are using the PG film as a reference, Patty turns her head and shoulders together to look.

  20. chadgatlin responds:

    There also appears to be an edit point at 13:11. Does anyone know if this is from the original or a later copy?

  21. edsbigfoot responds:

    I like this video, and it doesn’t scream hoax to me, but it isn’t 100% proof either. All of the analysis with arrows and lines against a drawing doesn’t convince me because the image is so blurry, and its moving, so, matching those things up against a still image, at least for me…maybe I just don’t understand how that works well enough, but it just doesn’t make make it any more convincing for me. But, I still think this is excellent footage, and may very well be the real thing. It would be nice to know if Mr. Freeman has any known hoaxes as I think another post suggested, if thats for sure, then I think that changes the game some….

  22. hoodoorocket responds:

    Interesting how many people like this for being real. Because some of you have crypto cred, I’ll watch this a few more times with an open mind.

    Damn but wouldn’t I love to see a frame by frame of the figure at original resolution. I’d love to see a good video of the range of motion of that head turn. I’m still thinking it could beefy guy in a ski mask or balaclava but we’ll never know from this video file.

    There would be so much more to be resolved if we could see beyond the crap encode.

    Concerning dermal ridges- if the ridges are real we could expect to find print matches over multiple casts. If they are the results of the plaster curing then we should expect random prints (differing prints) from one right footprint to the next right footprint (or one left footprint to the next).

    If there was only a single cast with dermal ridges, what are the chances that the random cure ridges will resemble primate loops and whorls (I don’t know, I’m asking)?

    The way we did casts of animal spoor when I was a kid was to sift dry plaster over the print, mist with water, wait, then fill with plaster, laying twigs and grass in the cast for strength. rinse with water and varnish the cast. The casts were soft and fragile on the surface before varnishing, but if you were careful with them you could see hair, claws, and the fine pattern of cracked paw pad skin on the best ones. I don’t remember obvious deformation caused by sloppy mixing.

    I consider sound to be a determent on most visuals. I don’t have sound at work (so if they talked about Dr Meldrum examining these I missed it), and I usually turn it off at home for the first run through. Sound is the main method of influencing what is being shown. Look at what is shown, disregard (keep it separate from) what you are being told. This is why good investigators watch how an interviewee is telling the story, and give it as much weight as what the interviewee is saying. In these videos audio accounts have unknown motive, making them suspect, and expert witnesses are rare.

    Also FBFB, meh, good riddance, they did backflips to prove every stump, shadow, and doorknob was really really a real bigfoot. 20 minutes of bullshit backed up by nothing but wishful thinking and second grade grammar, for every 5 second clip- that doesn’t contribute anything useful. Just show me the evidence in its originally presented form at the highest resolution possible.

  23. Goodfoot responds:

    Paul…. wherever you are. In the past, though I never said a word to trash your footage, I am sure I gave it far less respect than it clearly, CLEARLY deserves. Because for all the differences, the similarities with the P-G film are obvious. If Freeman’s reactions are not utterly genuine, my previous 64 years have been wasted. The creature is depicts exhibits a very few differences from P-G’s “Patty”, but the similarities are LEGION, and it DOES NOT WALK LIKE ANY HUMAN BEING WALKS.

    Paul Freeman, YOU DID GOOD. You did really, really GOOD. You did your best, which is something many can’t say… the footage is flawed, but it’s DYNAMITE. It’s the real deal

  24. Goodfoot responds:

    hoodoorocket: Pack up your “monkey” and GO HOME. Everybody knows there are no monkeys up heah in North America. Is this your tactic? Make up a term everyone knows there are none of and call it that? She…. boy. Is that the best you got?

  25. hoodoorocket responds:

    @ goodfoot, yep, that was the best I had, sorry old man, didn’t mean to piss you off. I must say I’ve never felt inadequate about my monkey until this moment. Now I want nothing more than for you to stop fixating on it…

    You seem to be taking this personally, does the figure in the video bring to mind a past paramore perhaps? Well you’ll get no apology from me. I’m fond of my monkey and it’ll take more than a passing resemblance to your mother to make me ashamed of it.

    And what kind of fellow berates another man’s monkey in public, anyway? He ain’t no kinda a man at all, in my book. What kind of bringing up did you have, were you raised by AC/DC gypsies?

    You seem to think this video is genuine, I seem to think that I don’t know (didn’t think that was a punishable offense). In any case, a good argument would sway me to your view better than a cheeky dressing down, ya monkey-hating tosser.

  26. dconstrukt responds:

    to me, (not saying it is or is perfect) it seems more legit than anything else i’ve seen on the site. :-)

  27. squwatcher responds:

    I don’t see how anyone could call the Freeman footage hoaxed. It conforms on too many known aspects of Sasquatch morphology: the rise/fall step pattern, sloped forehead, shin rise, tree-peeking, head set forward on the spine, and more. Davis’ work shows that she picks up something and it appears to be a juvenile, splindly legs clearly seen hanging. Plus, Freeman just seems too genuinely excited, he’s not a actor. The sentiments he exclaims appear spontaneous and genuine. No, this is the real deal, IMO.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.