Freeman’s Hairy Man

Posted by: The Discerning Man's Squatch on January 24th, 2014

Freeman’s Hairy Man
By The Discerning Man’s Squatch

I am sticking my neck out where I normally don’t put it, making matter of fact statements towards a positive conclusion, but think this story (the whole story) has some very convincing elements that put it up there with the best of the very best in the annals of evidence towards the truth about Bigfoot’s existence. I will discuss the normally pointed out shortcomings of the evidence on film and Paul himself and why I think they are wrong, at least in how they came to their conclusions. In the end I will show why I believe at the very least if this is a hoax, Paul himself may have been the intended party, which in my mind being unlikely, makes his video much more likely the real deal.

First let me start off by saying even though I have always loved this video, I have wondered if it might not be too good to be true and have questioned Paul’s reaction being on par with what you might expect. I also believed that he was a self-admitted hoaxer and that while the video was impressive, it was also inconclusive at the very best because of that. This was however before I looked into it much further as someone who was skeptical and looking for information that just might tear it apart if prodded with too much force.

Many people automatically believed this a hoax based off of other’s accusations of Paul Freeman. There were some, especially in the early days of this being released who thought his spate of sightings just a little too convenient and therefore suspicious and wrote them off mostly because of the frequency of them. I would counter that with, he was not only in the right place at the right time (obviously if true), but this was a place that they (Bigfoot) either migrated through or maybe even called a temporary home. He in fact had mapped his sightings for years and discovered (if you are to believe him) that they repeatedly showed up in the same areas at certain times of the year. I would call this fairytalesque (not a real word) if it were not for his footprint casts, which have passed the scrutiny of the highly credible Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anthropologist and professor of anatomy at Idaho State University and also for the amazing subject referred to as Bigfoot in the Freeman film.

One argument toward Paul’s likely hoaxing, is that he admitted to making fake large feet himself, which in and of itself does appear at first to be incriminating. But if you take into account how that information reaches us and his explanation of why, it seems far less sinister. I have seen the interview where he states on TV the making of fake feet, but he was not cornered into making that statement, but said it unabashedly and the insinuation was that he made them for a comparison of those versus what he believed were real tracks. He made that statement on Good Morning America, and I feel it was an honest reply from an open man who by being so, opened himself up to criticism. Why say anything that will put your credibility at risk unless you are just being forthcoming? Further clarification comes to me directly from Dr. Jeff Meldrum in that Paul himself told Meldrum that he experimented in his own back yard to see what would be required to create a fake track and how that would look if you made casts of them. Paul I am told was not impressed by the fakes according to Meldrum. That he made fakes can be taken two different ways, but my inclination now is that we have a man who is taking a more scientific approach to a subject that has known hoaxers in it and Paul was being thorough for his own doubts and doubters sake. The important take away is that he was not “caught” making tracks and then confessed, but he offered this information freely that he could have easily kept to himself forever.

The casts themselves are important and show not only dermal ridges (like finger prints on the foot), but corroborate suspected anatomy such as a mid-tarsal break that were becoming a hard fast theory in Meldrum’s own conclusions. Meldrum suggests a person making a fake foot like these would have to have a great knowledge of bipedalism and certain details of a primate’s foot that make this difficult to justify coming from an everyday Joe with a Bigfoot fetish. The clincher on the tracks comes from Meldrum’s own castings that show variations in the splaying of toes that indicate a living creature and not of a static wooden fake foot.

Another dispute to Paul’s honesty is his demeanor during another separate interview. He does look down a lot, crosses his arms at times and seems rather reserved throughout the whole thing, but I would say after what I have learned of him, that could be because he has been ridiculed for years and he was prepared to be ridiculed again and was resigned to it. I know there are great story tellers out there and honestly think most sighting claims come from those who do it well, but I get a different vibe from Paul despite any body language red flags. His accounting comes off as honest to me from a shy and perhaps beaten man that was telling his experiences despite the hell he knew it would bring him.

There is also the claim, which I have been hearing a lot lately, that the Bigfoot in Paul’s video looks earthward as it takes a step down a drop off and that proves it is a costume. It has been compared to walking with a Halloween mask on and our tendency to stare at the ground so we do not trip and fall because of the eye holes not allowing us to look down at our feet. Others say it is unnatural for an animal in the wild to walk cautiously as if comparing that to us as we navigate our own uncluttered living rooms. To me this is a bad argument. We have no idea, what it may be trying to avoid as it takes that “single” step from a higher area to a lower one and should seem natural in any regard unless it was immune to broken ankles. Being in a family that owns equine, I guarantee you an animal as steady footed as a horse, if careless can easily injure itself and that can spell its demise quickly. The claim that an animal that lives in the wilderness would not need to watch where it is going shows a lack of understanding of wild animals which unlike skate boarding teens on Youtube are very conscious of what an injury means to its own survival.

Paul Freeman’s reaction as he filmed an encounter with Sasquatch not realistic? I will say that this bothered me when I first watched the video. It just seemed off, but I was at the time not aware of all of Paul’s experiences and so based that off of how I would react if this was my first time seeing a Bigfoot. This was not by a long shot (as he claims) the first time he had seen them and so if you take his reaction with that knowledge, the narration and then reaction to the big guy or gal coming through the trees does seem right on the money. I have little doubt now that Paul’s reaction fits perfectly with his experiences and his running into them after being excited by the tracks he was initially documenting. This turn around in my own thinking goes directly to my criteria of proof for knowing the background story to be able to come to a conclusion on any evidence.

Finally, the film seeming too good to be true? Well what do you want? If you prefer blobsquatches you will be disappointed because this is not the case here. Also it is not “too good” and if a hoax, he could have done a lot better especially with that brilliant “costume”.

This next point with everything else I have discovered is the real epiphany in this story and has really made me question my skepticism on this particular event. One that should prove that this is not a hoax performed by Paul, and if true either means Paul himself was hoaxed extravagantly or the Freeman film is legit.

There has since been what are referred to as breakdowns of the film that tell a more thorough story than we initially see or even Paul was aware of up until his death and this to me is what makes this film go from great, but inconclusive to very possibly real. Seems there were three Sasquatch in this video and not the two that Paul is ever aware of. In several breakdowns an infant is seen being hoisted into the arms (at least that is what appears to happen) as the big Squatch has its back to us. Almost impossible to see without zooming in on the footage with current technology and the kicker is Paul makes no mention of it… ever. This fact of Paul’s ignorance on this was also confirmed to me directly by Dr. Meldrum stating Paul never mentioned a baby to him or ever heard that he had to anyone else and that right there to me anyway speaks volumes on its authenticity. A detail so incredible that is left out by the filmer, only to be discovered years after the fact is astonishing and gives a lot of credibility to the whole.

On top of all of this, we wouldn’t even be discussing the film if it weren’t for the fact that this massive thing looks very real. Even better, it looks very similar to Patty, of Patterson, Gimlin fame, and in my eyes definitely appears like an animal and not of the human variety donning a costume. The way it walks with its slow yet confident gait (especially that step down, as it briefly looks at the ground) and then turns its no neck head towards Freeman is magnificent, even if a hoax.

Now, I am not stating this is irrefutable proof of the existence of Sasquatch, but I do think what others including myself have used in our arsenal to doubt this, casts less of a shadow when you look at the big picture and avoid hearsay by doing your own homework. In my mind while I can’t seem to make that leap to one hundred percent convinced, I can say that I am as close to it as I will probably ever be and I got here through hopefully some good research and critical thought, which is not to say there are not any infallible assumptions along the way. You will always have to take some things as unconfirmed truths to get to either side of the debate on something like this video and therein lies why there are as many people who doubt this as there are people completely convinced. For me though, and I do say this with a bit of a wince as I pride myself on not being gullible or being taken in, but I think when I add up all I know of this film, this very well could be the real deal.

The Discerning Man's Squatch About The Discerning Man's Squatch
Gordon Ambrose from Golden, Colorado is an enthusiast of things that go bump in the night. The strange, the unexplained and the manufactured imaginings of the human species. Believing that the human monster can be the scariest of them all, Gordon likes to tackle these questions with a philosophical slant that digs deep into the human psyche. “There are reasons we tell tales of the creepy kind Gordon believes, and they come from not only the darkness under our beds, but in the recesses of our minds, especially when the sun goes down and we are left with only our unprotected, naked selves.” Specifically for Gordon, Bigfoot is a fascinating and profound subject, and has the distinct possibility of being one of many real boogeymen that we have been warned about in myth and legend. “That is why it has captured almost everyone’s imagination, he says, both believer and skeptic.” Gordon considers himself a skeptic, but warns that does not mean he doubts anything for doubts sake. Both sides have blinders on Gordon thinks, as skeptics can use the same faulty logic to come to conclusions as those who see our planet teeming with Bigfoots, UFOs, Sea Monsters and Ghosts. Critical thinking is our friend and the best tool in our tool box and always our justly prerogative. One question Gordon gets asked a lot is, “Do you think Bigfoot exists”? His answer is not a straight forward one, because he, like most of us, has not had a personal encounter. He believes it is a possibility and even a likely one though. “Unfortunately we sometimes share this hobby, with those who use very little critical thinking and I am not a fan of that, he says. We have made leaps and bounds since the Dark Ages and I for one don’t feel the need to go back there in my search for an answer. The truth is out there and it resides in the real world. The place I like to hang my hat”. Gordon has a Facebook fan page named “The Discerning Man’s Squatch” where he first began to ponder and speculate not only the existence of Sasquatch, but what it means to us and how it relates, to our understanding of ourselves. “These are the questions that many don’t ask and I feel compelled to ask them” he says. Majoring in both History and Philosophy, he has a unique perspective that those subjects have brought to him and likes to remind himself of the phrases “Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it” and” I think therefore I am”. “We do have an inherent need for a boogeyman” he states. The need arises from our persistence to survive and keeps us from being careless when there are real dangers out there. Colorful stories keep those things close to our breast and help us to remind future generations to look before you leap, because there are real things out there with sharp teeth.” “That being said, he reminds us, that does not mean the colorful stories do not represent the real deal on occasions and in the case of Bigfoot, the deal has gotten a little more real for me, by doing some deep exploring into the topic.” “I am lucky to live in the mountains of Colorado. An area where I can look out my window and see miles of thick trees that cover the hills. There have been sightings not far from my home and I absolutely love that! There is almost nothing more exciting to me, to think that the big guy with big feet could be lurking in my very own backyard. However it also has the secondary consequence of making me a little more jittery when I go camping solo with just my dog.”

3 Responses to “Freeman’s Hairy Man”

  1. chadgatlin responds:

    Great article. Thanks for bringing to light the reason behind the “known hoaxer” reputation of Freeman. I didn’t realize it was all because he admitted to making wooden feet and using them in his backyard. I have always thought this was one of the most convincing pieces of video available, and now I lean even further that direction.

    I do have doubts about the presence of a baby, though. I don’t see enough detail to discern the change in the picture from artifact. The only other thing that has bothered me with the Freeman case is that if he had found a regular position from which he could observe Sasquatch, why wasn’t there follow up evidence? Wouldn’t they have continued to visit this watering hole at that time of year? Seems like there would have been more videos.

    No one knows for sure, but as I said, this is one of the most impressive pieces of evidence in my mind.

  2. DWA responds:

    Well, it takes all kinds to make a world.

    So didn’t there have to be somebody out there who applies skepticism to this topic the way it SHOULD be: poking holes in the tissue of assumptions that constitutes the skeptical “case” against sasquatch?

  3. dconstrukt responds:

    the freeman video to me, has always been very intriguing.

    i mean the first shots of the ‘thing’ look crazy.

    thing is HUGE

    walks with a big stride

    looks massive and not humanlike with the movements.

    always wondered if its legit or not.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.