Paul Freeman precentage belief? Options

[bigfoot: i belie...]

Whats your true percentage belief on the 1994 Paul freeman footage??

Im right now about 65% belief! Im not that big on it because of the bigfoots head...it dosent look that real to me or right... very odd shaped/too small and shaved like?

But owhats your percent belief?

This post has been edited by bigfoot: i believe: Oct 17 2006, 04:28 PM

Attached image(s)

 

[Huntster]

I'll give it 5%.

[LAL]

Due to the oddity of the prints visible in the footage, which are a match for ones cast by Jeff Meldrum two years later, I have to give it my vote, but I don't think in percentages. I'm sure or I'm not, more or less.

The head and the figure look an awful lot like stills from Oklahoma shown at WCS 2003, BTW.

Meldrum noted Freeman was close enough to the second one he could see its face was deformed. I hadn't read that detail before.

[bigfoot: i belie...]

Seriously? why? (HUNSTER)

This post has been edited by bigfoot: i believe: Oct 18 2006, 01:13 PM

[twinkletoes]

Im about 20 percent of belief in the little bit that I saw..it seemed blurry to me to tell what it was..

[Ty]

I'll be generous and give it .05 percent towards it being legit only because I can't actually see a zipper.

Freeman blew it by putting in too much padding.
What about all of the sighting reports of a svelt, muscular,graceful creature?




One more meal and I could picture this creature lying in a bed wearing bib overalls and pigtails being counseled by Dick Gregory. :laugh:

[bigfoot: i belie...]

lol

[LAL]

Patty's svelt? There's a report of a very lean individual nearly hit by a car close to Multnomah Falls, but it was in January. Perhaps it was starving.

Freeman had been monitoring the spring. I think it would be useful to check out his methods instead of mocking the guy.

[Huntster]

Seriously? why? (HUNSTER)

Well, I gave the PG film a 95% rating, even though I'm nearly positive that it was a real sasquatch.

So, even though I'm nearly positive that Paul Freeman never photographed a real sassquatch, I'll give him the 5% I fraudulently stole from Patterson and Gimlin.

I'm generous that way sometimes...............

[scotto]

Freeman blew it by putting in too much padding.

It looks like some guy in an over-stuffed Hefty bag with his head sticking out of the top.

Plus, when you watch this video, look how the "creature" looks down at its feet, like it has to watch where it is stepping.
It looks like a man would walk while wearing a mask, so he didn't trip while wearing it. It looks almost straight down.
If an animal had that much musculature in it's neck, it looks like it would be almost an impossible feat to do what the "creature" does in this fuzzy film.
When I saw the film the first time, I actually laughed out loud, after hearing Freeman say; "Oh look, there he goes."
We see him filming the tracks, then he pans right up to where his buddy was standing in the suit.

I give it a .000001% chance. :laugh:

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

Patty's svelt?

Irrelevant since it's never been proven "Patty" is an actual sasquatch.

[Ty]

Patty's svelt? There's a report of a very lean individual nearly hit by a car close to Multnomah Falls, but it was in January. Perhaps it was starving.

Freeman had been monitoring the spring. I think it would be useful to check out his methods instead of mocking the guy.

I can't use the P/G subject as a reference for what a Bigfoot looks like because I'm not convinced it's legitimate.....and why would I have to check out Freeman's methods?...it's not going to make this film look any less ridiculous to me.

This post has been edited by Ty2: Oct 18 2006, 11:30 PM

[Ty]

LAL wrote:

Patty's svelt?

Irrelevant since it's never been proven "Patty" is an actual sasquatch.

I concur.

[Ty]

Freeman blew it by putting in too much padding.

It looks like some guy in an over-stuffed Hefty bag with his head sticking out of the top.

Plus, when you watch this video, look how the "creature" looks down at its feet, like it has to watch where it is stepping.
It looks like a man would walk while wearing a mask, so he didn't trip while wearing it. It looks almost straight down.
If an animal had that much musculature in it's neck, it looks like it would be almost an impossible feat to do what the "creature" does in this fuzzy film.
When I saw the film the first time, I actually laughed out loud, after hearing Freeman say; "Oh look, there he goes."
We see him filming the tracks, then he pans right up to where his buddy was standing in the suit.

I give it a .000001% chance. :laugh:

:laugh: That's it in a nutshell.

[bigfoot: i belie...]

Yea true he is very padded and his head looks like its comin from the top (like a pencil)

Attached image(s)

 

[LAL]

LAL wrote:

Patty's svelt?

Irrelevant since it's never been proven "Patty" is an actual sasquatch.

It certainly hasn't been proven she isn't.

One of my first thoughts on seeing the Freeman 1994 footage was that it was a male creature and looked like what I would think her mate might look like. I did a real double take when I saw the Oklahoma stills on WCS. The kind of offset head angle even looks the same. So does the bulk.

No mention of the footprints?

[LAL]

Plus, when you watch this video, look how the "creature" looks down at its feet, like it has to watch where it is stepping.

My cat does that too. It doesn't make him a rat in a cat suit.

There's not enough detail to see where the eyes might be pointing. The head could be down while the eyes look ahead, but why would an animal looking to see where it's going seem phony to you? False steps could lead to injury and injury could be debilitating (one reason cougars avoid conflict; they have no pack to carry them if they suffer injury).

This was apparently a small family group. If someone other than Freeman had gotten the footage would the encounter seem more real to you?

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

No mention of the footprints?

Oh, you mean the footprints made by a guy that Byrne, Dahinden, Green and countless others have never given hardly any credence to, due to his incredible "luck" at finding "evidence"? Plus the fact that the prints are so morphologically different from other alleged Bigfoot prints as to be viewed as laughable by many. If the film was a hoax it would have been incredibly easy to have planted them for HIMSELF to video. But since Meldrum, He at whose altar you worship constantly, bought the footprints lock, stock and barrel, they, therefore, are likely real? Lu, you really crack me up. Speaking of Meldrum, have you ever disagreed with anything he has said or written...besides grammatical errors?

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 19 2006, 10:18 AM

[bigfoot: i belie...]

well what do you guys think on that freeman footage b.s. of it piking up a baby? :bsflag:

Attached image(s)

 

[LAL]

LAL wrote:

No mention of the footprints?

Oh, you mean the footprints made by a guy that Byrne, Dahinden, Green and countless others have never given hardly any credence to, due to his incredible "luck" at finding "evidence"? Plus the fact that the prints are so morphologically different from other alleged Bigfoot prints as to be viewed as laughable by many. If the film was a hoax it would have been incredibly easy to have planted them for HIMSELF to video. But since Meldrum, He at whose altar you worship constantly, bought the footprints lock, stock and barrel, they, therefore, are likely real? Lu, you really crack me up. Speaking of Meldrum, have you ever disagreed with anything he has said or written...besides grammatical errors?

You, who were taken in by Greg Long, spout on like that?

I caught typos, not grammatical errors, and two captions that seem to be incorrect. I don't know if he wrote them. Since I haven't read or heard everything Meldrum has said or written, I don't know if I would agree or not. I know he knows a lot more about his field than I do.

I worship nothing, BTW, although I'm rather impressed by circa 150 billion gallaxies. You might want to try debating without the false assumptions.

There's too much all or nothing regarding Freeman, IMO. He brought in important evidence and I think it's ridiculous to dismiss it all because of his incautious remark on Good Morning America or his touching up of toe prints or some silly business about a suit. Both he and Marx were responsible for some important stuff and both apparently tried to keep things going when interest flagged. The actions may have been stupid but they don't invalidate the good evidence.

Having the second and third toes longer than the great toe the prints is "so morphologically different from other alleged Bigfoot prints as to be viewed as laughable by many"? (You and who else?) Are people with Morton's Foot laughable? What about Tollgate, Oregon? Same kind of prints there.

Freeman went out about three times a week into a "hot spot". Would he have been more believeable if he'd stayed home and found nothing at all?

Green thinks Bryne is a fraud, Bryne seems to have mismeasured somehow in the case of the Redwoods video, and Dahinden didn't seem to have much use for anyone, but check this out:

"In 1982, U.S. Forest Service Patrol rider Paul Freeman came face to face with what he says was a bigfoot about 25 miles southeast of Walla Walla near the top of Tiger Canyon. Dahinden said he’s studied that report and any skepticism he had about it is “melting away� because of the numerous independent discoveries of tracks in the same area."

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/reneinwalla.htm

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

You, who were taken in by Greg Long, spout on like that?

And you, somehow with your mystical powers know everything Long wrote is false? Your wishful thinking is showing again.

Since I haven't read or heard everything Meldrum has said or written, I don't know if I would agree or not.

I didn't ask if you've "read or heard everything Meldrum has said or written". Of what you have read, have you ever disagreed with anything he has uttered?

Having the second and third toes longer than the great toe the prints is "so morphologically different from other alleged Bigfoot prints as to be viewed as laughable by many"?....What about Tollgate, Oregon? Same kind of prints there.

Lu, the basic overall shape of Freeman's prints, to many, are cartoonish. Please produce a side by side comparison to show they're the "same kind of prints".

Freeman went out about three times a week into a "hot spot". Would he have been more believeable if he'd stayed home and found nothing at all?

Probably. Given the footprints presented and the, uh, frequency with his "finds".

In 1982, U.S. Forest Service Patrol rider Paul Freeman came face to face with what he says was a bigfoot about 25 miles southeast of Walla Walla near the top of Tiger Canyon. Dahinden said he’s studied that report and any skepticism he had about it is “melting away� because of the numerous independent discoveries of tracks in the same area."

I talked directly with Dahinden at a Bigfoot conference in the late '90s. His attitude then, following the amazing amount of alleged evidence that Freeman came up with, following his initial sighting claim in '82, was that, basically, he was full of s***.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 19 2006, 09:02 PM

[LAL]

Dahinden wouldn't have been jealous, would he? He didn't have much good to say about Krantz or the "greaaaaaaaaaaat John Green", either.

[LAL]

Edited to remove double post.

This post has been edited by LAL: Oct 19 2006, 09:36 PM

[LAL]

I've read Green and Knights on Long; no mystical powers required.

The pictures are from Sasquatch by Jeff Meldrum, pages 129 and 227:

This post has been edited by LAL: Oct 19 2006, 09:53 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

Dahinden wouldn't have been jealous, would he?

Don't think so. He was just very vocal when he felt someone was either sloppy scientifically or a B.S.er.

And I still haven't ordered your DVDs.

Hopefully, I'll get by. :laugh:

I've read Green and Knights on Long. Have you?

Yep. Still think the PGF is probably a hoax.


Regarding the photo comparison...in the Tollgate photos, the second and third toes do not appear longer than the big toe..as is the case with the Freeman shots.

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 19 2006, 09:56 PM

[LAL]

Take it up with Jeff. He's the primate foot anatomy specialist.

Dahinden was very vocal, I'll give him that.

[bigfoot: i belie...]

one of my good freinds study the evidence of foot tracks of either beast-bigfoot,giganto,yeti!

very cool :new_lmaosmiley:

Attached image(s)

 

[LAL]

Yea true he is very padded and his head looks like its comin from the top (like a pencil)

Check the head in profile. It looks quite normal for a creature with virtually no neck. I think the "pencil" look is a trick of the light.

Here's a still of the "lift" showing what appears to be a foot dangling:

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[LAL]

Regarding the photo comparison...in the Tollgate photos, the second and third toes do not appear longer than the big toe..as is the case with the Freeman shots.

It appears the second and third toes are more deeply impressed in the Tollgate cast and print photo than the great toe. If this is the case, straightened out they would be longer.

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote:

It appears the second and third toes are more deeply impressed in the Tollgate cast and print photo than the great toe. If this is the case, straightened out they would be longer.

This presumes the apparent relative deepness, as it were, was caused by scrunched toes. No proof of that.
Another possiblity is that the weight, for whatever reason, was greater at that moment on the second and third toes. Nice try, though. :wink:

By the way, you never answered my question of whether or not you've ever disagreed with Meldrum about anything he's written or said that you've personally read or heard. Have you?

[LAL]

LAL wrote:

It appears the second and third toes are more deeply impressed in the Tollgate cast and print photo than the great toe. If this is the case, straightened out they would be longer.

This presumes the apparent relative deepness, as it were, was caused by scrunched toes. No proof of that.
Another possiblity is that the weight, for whatever reason, was greater at that moment on the second and third toes. Nice try, though. :wink:

Not as nice as yours.

By the way, you never answered my question of whether or not you've ever disagreed with Meldrum about anything he's written or said that you've personally read or heard. Have you?

I really can't answer that without violating the guidelines concerning religion. In terms of his interest in Sasquatches, yes, I have some questions, if not out and out disagreements.

I have a question or two for you, namely, have you read his book yet and why do you take sideswipes at me? What have I ever done to you?

One more: Who's this "many"? Any trained anatomists? Podiatrists? Shoe salesmen?

[Blackdog]

...have you read his book yet

Why is that relavent to every thread? Is that the new bigfoot bible and no one is qualified to discuss anything without reading it?

This is getting very old. Is there something that is so frikken new in the book that it puts the rest of us so far behind the times that we can't discuss anything without that prerequisite?

We might as well shut 'er down because most people here haven't read the damn thing. I guess that makes you the expert here Lu.

[Yetifan]

LAL wrote (in response to me asking if she's ever disagreed with anything Meldrum has said or uttered):

In terms of his interest in Sasquatches, yes, I have some questions, if not out and out disagreements.

Would you mind listing at least two?

I have a question or two for you, namely, have you read his book yet and why do you take sideswipes at me? What have I ever done to you?

I'm currently reading it. Lu, this is a public board about the Bigfoot phenomenon. If someone, not just you, makes what I feel to be scientifically and/or logically suspect comments, I'll occasionally call them on it. You just happen to make more of them than most. You've had a history here of basically being a cheerleader for famous bits of purported bigfoot evidence. However, part of the scientific process is also taking seriously the problems with those bits. You argue ad nauseam about the Minnesota Iceman being real, the PGF being real, everything that Meldrum utters is gospel, the MDF, etc. I'm far from being the only one who feels this way about your posts. I know you're not dumb, but how about, since there isn't any hard proof for the existence of these animals, using your intellect occasionally for acknowledging the problems with such evidence instead of acting like Joan of Arc, defending the Faith until the Scoftics burn you at the stake.
Believe it or not, I believe these beings actually exist. I also think there's truckloads of weak evidence being presented as strong. You are probably the number one purveyor on this board of that. So, until you start using a few more "possiblys", "perhaps", and exhibit a more questioning, rather than dogmatically proclaiming attitude with some of your posts, you can bet I and others will call you on it. Besides, your signature is "I'm not on earth for you to like me". With that attitude, what do you expect?

This post has been edited by Yetifan: Oct 20 2006, 09:39 PM