Has anyone seen the episode of Mysterious Encounters where Autumn Williams point out where the bigfoot picks up an infant? What's up with that? Does anybody have a still of that frame?

My Webpage

hiya maheekat, i dont have a still, but you know that dvd called "sasquatch: legend meets science" ? well, there's a good deal of time spent on that film, with slo-mo's and some great evaluations/assessments of what it could be.

i think i bought mine on the bfro site

gael

here ya go

Not too easy to see in a still but what the heck

Here are afew more

It has been theorized that the Large guy is shufflin the little guy along in front of him( you cant see this though but the way the figure keeps looking down as if to be cautious of a little one.

It is also theorised that in the end when it could be lifting up a child that actually it is Freemons son pulling off the mask to the suit he is wearing

Who knows

I found some video and dumped it down to Imovie but the quality is :yuck: but I play the "Mask" part over and over hhhhmmmm, pushing the little one along, ya that makes sense. I wonder how long the stride is going by the tree? two steps worth. Freeman did get caught before..hhhhhhmmmm

I have said it before and I say it again. I don´t think that Freeman faked the footage.

If it´s a fake it´s propably someone who dressed up in a suit and tried to joke with him.

I don´t buy the argument that Freeman said "There he goes" on an earlier film and therefore this is a fake.

Some people says certain expressions a lot.

How many people would think of shaking the camera seriously when they first realised that they are filming a BF and the surprise makes you shake of fright?

How many would be so scared of a friend in a suit?

Freeman spent a lot of time in the field looking for BF after all.

Well, I sure hope so because that is some cool footage! It always struck me as being real especially when it looks at the camera as it passes the tree. A male with an infant too?







www.maheekatmusic.com

My impression is that its real also. But the other theories should be mentioned to give you the full picture.

The size and movement is quit strange for it to be a man IMO. Look at the ground it covers in like 3 steps.

It is also creapy how it syands behind the bush for a second just staring at freeman and then moves on. I always felt if I did a hoax I would try to not have my guy inna suit look at the camera because it is very hard to fake the face IMO. Just a thought

Intersting how the Memorial footage also looks like a youngin is lifted up at the end.

If they are young then this si a good sign for future population and further sightings for our children

Anybody know the location where Freeman made the film? I also wonder the same concerning the Memorial Day footage.

Has anyone seen any plumbing in the footage? Why does it have to be a male of the species. Just because she ain't built like Patty don't mean she ain't all woman! Could be a young mother and Patty was an old matron. The variation in size may be as wide in range as those among human females.

I'll go with that! wouldn't want to meet her in a dark ally!

My gut tells me that despite Freeman's other acts that this video is legit. Unfortunately like so much other evidence its all moot until someone drags in a body.

Location; Freeman worked, I believe, out of Walla Walla Wa and did his research in the Blue mtns to the SE of there....I believe he shot this at Squaw Spring, in the mill ck watershead. It's actually just across the border in northern Oregon....

Here is the BFRO report for the Memorial Day sighting.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2600

The site is located in north central Washington very close to the Canadian border!

I've given my opinion on this film already on here several months ago, but i guess it's ok to repeat myself every now and then. First time i ever saw this footage i thought it looked like the same thing in the Patterson/Gimlin film. Every other footage i'd seen appeared to be an obvious fake...but this one grabbed my attention. It looked good(altho from a distance) and it moved good....i'd say it's much heavier than the one in the P/G film. I would've bet more on this one being the real deal than i would have on the P/G Bigfoot. But then i saw some pictures that Mr Freeman claimed showed a Bigfoot, and in my opinion, those pics were fake. So then i had a film i thought was real, and a photo i thought was fake, from the same man. So after seeing the photos that i think are 100% fake, the film i once thought had a 80% chance of being real, i'd now say only has a 25% chance of being real. And if he used the line "there he goes" in a previous tape, i'd probably drop that from 25% to 10%. Because that just makes it seem as if he was following a script. So my opinion on the authenticity of this film has gone from rather high, to rather low. But if he did fake it, he did a good job! You can't just say it's a fake and dismiss it, like most of the footage that appears. It looks large....and (in my opinion) it moves like it's heavy. Now, is there a danglin' Baby in there? Well i saw the footage they showed on mysterious encounters, and it looked like something that needs to be looked at. But, no matter how much it's looked at, what i saw on mysterious encounters didn't appear to be enough to ever say for sure.

I don't how this will sound but, I WISH PEOPLE WOULDN'T TRY AND PULL S##T! what is the purpose? money,fame,no self esteem? who knows....

ok so where are the pictures that freeman faked ?
I wanna see them as I belive the freeman footage is real.


Troy

Here's the link to the thread with the pictures that i consider fake. Others may consider them genuine.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...2042&hl=freeman

DDA was talking on the thread about "Big stuff on BFRO" and was describing the shape and actions of the larger subject in the "Ape in The Trees" and it struck me as being very similar to the form in this Patterson footage..... "Pot belly"

Looks kinda blobsquatcheee to meeeeee....

Definitely blobbin'! And where's the picture of the creature moving away from the tree and through the clearing (pic 2 to pic 3)? That would be the picture worth posting.

I don´t really think that Freeman faked any photos. He just snapped a pic of something that he thought could have been a BF at that very moment.

I think it´s the same way with the so called fake casts. I think he just made casts of prints he thought looked real when he saw them.

The faking process was propably made by someone who wanted to fool people and Freeman wasn´t awhare of that.

I don´t think Krantz would respect Freeman if he knew that he obviously faked tracks and pics.

Well we won't know... seeing that the little fella has passed on to HOAXERS HEAVEN.

But IMO, I think it may have been HOAXED.
Cry wolf too many times he did! He has noone to blame but himself


Belle

So we have a known hoaxer, a blobfoot on brief film, lame acting, an invisible
bigfoot child, and no consistant size reference. This is a no brainer folks.

Although the area the footage was taken has consistantly produced creditable sightings over the years I have a hard time with Feeman himself. His reputation hurts the film which is already suspect. Is it just me are does he seem way to calm for a man by himself all alone that close to a Sasquatch and its young

Freeman's son?
Freeman says in the film he guesses there must be two of them. Might that not be the mother with the infant and the male is out of view?

See it on the LMS DVD in the extra features section. It's fairly clear.
Personally, I don't care if a frustrated Paul Freeman did fake something. He devoted much of his life and some $50,000 to the pursuit for little to no reward and most of his evidence seems to be authentic.
We did a whole thread on his credibility and no one produced evidence of fakery. I think I know the pictures you mean and they do look suspicious, but I don't see how that affects the '94 footage.

I have a video that shows the Freeman bigfoot. I have watched it over and over again and noticed that the creature looks down as if to see out of the holes of a mask like a halloween mask. This was to prevent falling down by loosing footing. A for a small one or baby bigfoot with it I can't see one. To me you should always look for the obvious and not try and find something that might mot be there(ie. the little bigfoot). If there is a small bigfoot then the bigfoot might be looking down at it.

The heavy feeling of the bigfoot this film gives you can only show me that the lack of smoothness in walking. The up and down movement of the head and body is not a trait of Bigfoot that eyewitnesses have talked about. On the contrary the smoothness and steady motion and head not bobbing up and down is a trait talked about over and over again. You can see this in the Patterson film.

Over all I am not impressed with any film attached to someone who may have hoaxed something else pertaining to Bigfoot.

Just my two cents worth. :new_whistle:

Just wanted to weigh in on the Freeman video "infant"...

I watched the footage with the producer, Doug Hajicek, on his HUGE high-def TV in his living room in Minneapolis.

It DEFINITELY appears that a juvenile creature is being lifted. I'm usually not so "absolute" about things, but having seen the footage so clearly, zoomed in, on a high-def screen, there is no doubt in MY mind that it is exactly what it appears to be. The articulation of the ankles and feet is crystal clear.

I know that many folks discount Freeman, doubt his credibility... but the fact that there is such a compelling detail in that video that Freeman knew nothing about and that was not discovered until after his death speaks volumes, in my opinion, about the authenticity of the film.

The other thing I find fascinating about this film is how the large male appears to "disappear" as he pauses behind the tree. He stops behind that tree seemingly purposefully, watching the cameraman. Although he's bulky and the tree is small enough that his large form shows on either side of it, he blends with his surroundings so beautifully, and stands so perfectly still, that one loses sight of him at that moment... exactly as he intends?

I recommend taking the DVD down to your local Circuit City or Best Buy and asking them to preview it on a LARGE HD TV. I think you'll be impressed.

Best,

Autumn Williams
Oregonbigfoot.com

What, no red circles? Dang.

Wow. Thanks, Autumn. I'm not sure I want to take my DVD anywhere after the looks I got for bringing my Bossburg cast copies to Lowe's in search of a plate hanger to fit, but I got to see it on one of my sons' fairly large hi-res screen, and I was impressed.

Freeman said in the film, "I guess there's two of them." The first figure we see could be the male and the second a female lifting the infant from a nearby bush or repositioning it. I'm wondering if there have been measurements to try to determine if the large figure appears twice or whether there's a second. Could Freeman have been referring to the infant? Did he even see it? Did he capture a small family group on film?

show some respect!

i dont get angry at my friends on here but that ticked me off!

R-E-S-P-E-C-T! heard of it?! :new_grrr:

whew! sorry :new_whistle: .............................. :1106:

I am beginning to wonder if maybe the serious " tool junkie " in Sasquatch might need to consider purchase of a large high def screen in addition to a good camera and recording equipment :laugh:

Belle was banned (one more round), Belle was banned.................

Hmmmm is it just me, but it seems that since that Ely stuff everyone's been seeing baby bigfoots in every piece of footage they see. The world's gone baby mad!!

While I have been personally accused of being "baby mad" (I have no idea what that means, I'm just bein' goofy... :laugh:), the infant lift in the Freeman footage was discovered by Doug Hajicek several years ago, just after Freeman passed away. That's why it's interesting to me... it IS very obvious on a high-def TV, and Freeman never mentioned it specifically...

For the record, I DO NOT buy that there is a baby visible in the Patterson footage. Doesn't mean there couldn't have been one or two (or forty) lurking in the shadows SOMEWHERE within a three-mile radius though! YAY BABIES! :new_lmaosmiley:

(I'm going to go have my coffee now, and save you from any more of my morning slap-happiness...)

Autumn

I think most folks here would fully support a bounty of Bigfoot babies. (This also has prompted me to try my query skills at finding juv sasquatch sightings)

Apparently, I also need to get the DVD version of LMS ... I jumped the gun when it came out and picked up the old VHS version.

I noticed right away that the Freeman subject "bobs" like a human when striding - that is its whole height comes over a straight, stiff leg just like you and Ma Ket so that its vertical characteristic has an up/down bobbing quality. This is quite the opposite of the smoothe "cross-country-ski" style of beloved Patty (and many reported sightings), whose knees are constantly broken in normal stride.

Also, despite the low calibur resolution, we do see a segment of direct sunlight hit its back and there is zero indication of muscle definition, spinal trail, or anything that might indicate natural anatomy. Looks very much like a hair shirt - and yes I have seen an unfortunate soul bold enough to wear a hair shirt. Patty, despite its own resolution issues, shows clear anatomy under scrutiny.

AND, when it pauses behind a tree, the subject clearly LOOKS DIRECTLY AT THE CAMERA before again stepping into the frame of view (as if on cue). Seems very fishy. Not like it was trying to hide, but trying to pause and allow the cameraman to reset himself. Perhaps even waiting for a visual "stage direction" from the camera.

AND... the thing simply keeps wandering in and out of Freeman's camera field rather than just drifting easily back into the ample cover directly behind it - the cover in which it already stood. I know the same type of argument was made against Patty, but in reality - she was caught in an open space and seemed to move naturally to relative cover perhaps with the intent of getting closer to where she ultimately wanted to arrive.

Lastly, I think it's a low-grade suit or at best a sasquatch who watches too much tv and drinks too much beer for his own good.

That is the reason I find the clip to be interesting also. Although, the subject definately picks something up at the end of the clip, it was the issue that Hijicek "discovered" it after Freeman died. Whether it was hoaxed or not, it is still interesting.

BTW, cryptidon, your avatar just creeps me out! :new_weirdsmiley:

:laugh:

this theory of a child being picked up is actually easly understood. Since int he native American culture they have statues and storys of BF piccking up and taking small kids.

This is the opposite of what I surmised when I saw the footage. The creature, if that's what it is, appears to very cleverly DISAPPEAR for just a moment by standing stock stick behind a tree that is ridiculously smaller than it is. I was impressed by how easy it was to lose track of it at this point in the footage. Also, is he looking "directly at the camera", or simply looking at Freeman, who would have been holding the camera to his face and therefore eye contact would appear the same.



I beg to differ here as well. First, if you observe the footage closely, the creature is making his way toward the left side of the screen. When the footage picks back up again, this is the same direction where the next creature is (you can hear Freeman say "there's two of 'em", but he NEVER mentioned a juvenile, so presumably this one is a separate adult than the one that he trained the camera on in the first place). This second creature CLEARLY lifts a juvenile - examine the footage on a hi-def monitor. If you watch the footage closely, you'll see that the first, large one picks his way carefully through the underbrush. (I'm assuming, due to the bulk and lack of breasts in an adult that this is a male). He does not seem to be in a hurry, nor does he appear particularly threatened by Freeman's presence; rather, I get the impression, from his body language, that it's simply time to "grab the family and go".

Patty WAS directly out in the open, and did not have much choice other than to keep moving, glancing at the men once while she did so. It's not too far out in left field to assume that, given a small tree to stop behind and briefly take stock of the situation, she may have done just that... or perhaps not. Despite blob-squatchers who argue the contrary, there is NO evidence that Patty had a juvenile around to worry about.



While producing my documentary, I personally wore a gorilla suit in order to get reenactment shots of a "Sasquatch". I can share what I know from experience. First, these suits, if black, ALWAYS display a bluish cast when one digitally enhances the footage and uses a Photoshop eyedropper to sample to color. This is due to the blue tint in the black dye used to color artificial hair. Second, the suit I purchased off of Ebay for $100 to do some silhouette shots for the Bauman reenactment would not fit anyone taller than myself... I'm 5'8"... that's why *I* was the one who had to wear the horrid thing. Next, these suits are STIFLING hot, the wearer is inevitably INCREDIBLY CLUMSY, the masks fit EXTREMELY poorly and when you turn your head, you end up looking at the inside of the mask more often than not. Finally, the suit is so INCREDIBLY poor fitting, with a ridiculous rubber chest (complete with droopy nipples :laugh: ), that it would not fool ANYONE - even at 100 yards.

That said, I shopped everywhere I could find for a relatively decent suit for this reenactment so that I didn't have to get TOO creative with the camera angles. This suit was the BEST I could find, unless I wanted to spend $3000 - $10,000 for a film-quality suit, which isn't much more believable... what's more, there are only a few out there and you've SEEN those suits in every bigfoot movie or commercial there is. Remember the suit Rob Mariano wore in the Sci-Fi episode? EXACT same suit that producer Dave Venghaus used in "They Call Him Sasquatch". There simply aren't that many "good" suits out there. I doubt Freeman had the dough to even rent a "good" suit... it was, I believe, about $3000 for the Sci Fi producers to RENT the suit they used.

Finally... I, too, noted that Freeman's Sasquatch was rather tubby. But who's to say a Sasquatch can't have a thyroid condition?

Just my two cents.

Best,

Autumn Williams
Oregonbigfoot.com

That was more like $20.00.

BTW, I loved your DVD. You're a very talented, beautiful and intelligent lady. It says music by Autumn Williams.........did you compose, perform, both?

Good points - shows how every viewer will see something diffferent. I have not seen this in hi-def, but I am very curious as to what is going on with the "infant lift". Otherwise, I remain highly skeptical, but I suppose nobody has definitively closed the book on this one.

What as to my point that the subjects 'bobs' like a human subject? I haven't heard any other comments about that but it definitely is something to consider.

Peace - wufgar

LOL. I guess that was a little more than two cents. That's the most I've said in months.

Thanks for the kind words about the DVD. Yes, I composed and performed the music. The music budget consisted of a $200 wooden Native American flute called a drone flute which is, in effect, two flutes in one. One side plays a drone bass note, and the other works like a conventional flute. Aside from that, I used the keyboard I already had... it's a studio-grade Yamaha. In my "spare" time (which there IS none anymore), I play several musical instruments and sing. I guess it came in handy when doing the documentary.... I didn't have the budget for a composer or to purchase a music library, so I figured I'd do it myself. :biggrin:

Best,

Autumn



Perhaps obese bigfoot simply aren't as light on their feet?

:laugh:

Seriously though, look at humans... each and every one of us has a slightly different gait, some of us more plodding than others.

Autumn

Yeah, that was a neat trick, a more reasonable explaination for disappearing Sasquatch then some. I think most animals will sometimes behave that way when threatened.

I just rewatched it and I think at best it's a "blobsquatch" in motion, if you take a still frame it would be labeled such, so I'm not gonna put to much weight on it, though it is very interesting.

The bobbing motion of the subject could have been due to being on a slope or somekind of bumpy terrain, but it's not clear enough to see, maybe someone else has given it a more in depth analysis?

The baby action going on in the two videos could be simply that having a kid around slows everything down, perhaps making it more likely to expose itself when feeling uneasy?

The print seen in the footge is a match for a cast made by people who had no association with Paul Freeman. The second toe is longer than the great toe.

It's beautiful. A couple of my friends play native flute but you don't want to know how I sound.

Okay - my curiosity is piqued again... what is the provenance of this film? Has any researcher completed an overall analysis? (I have read "Bigfoot of the Blues" - my autographed copy - but it doesn't cover this footage).
I'm willing to hear out the rehab of Paul Freeman's evidence, but I just can't seem to pull together any serious new info aside from Meldrum's latest.
Freeman's detractors say, "hoaxed once, hoaxed always". This is a good way to veer away from being embarrased (BFRO Sonoma footage...) - yet even Meldrum departs from other BF stalwarts over Freeman.
Okay - - where can I get a more complete poop...? Most sincerely, wufgar.