I have seen the Freeman Footage and I'm sure it has been a topic before...but, I was wondering if the footage was proven 'fake,' or is the jury still out. From what I saw it is inconclusive. But, from the behavior of the person fliming, he seems legit. Could be a great actor though. Just wanted to get the expert's opinions.

Sorry this got posted twice, computer gliche'!! :computer:


Thanks moderator(s) for cleaning up me' mess!

Check out these thread for discussion on the Freeman footage.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=3487&hl=

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=7292&hl=

hi everyone i think the freeman sasquatch footage is authentic. but it needs more looking into it. bill green

I was just watching it last night for the 1,213th time. I romantically want to lean towards it being authentic, but being romantic does not prove anything. The part that continually catches my eye is when the creature stops behind the sapling. It positions itself in a manner that it can see Freeman well yet it's profile blends in with the foilage. The "infant" part is also curious.

I would feel better about it if Freeman was not such a questionable person.

......then watch the freeman footage again. Also, the infant portion is freemans buddy taking off that hot and very heavy costume.

hi researchers thanks for replying to my post. bill green. please email me so we can talk about the freeman footage more. billgreenbg@aol.com. also i never saw a young sasquatch in footage with the other sasquatch.

The possibile infant footage is in the special features segment section of the LMS DVD.

I'll give you the definitive stomper BS/Hair-rise freakout report after I get my LMS video. It's infallible! My gut will turn/butterfly at a real vid/pic and at a BS vid/pic...nothin...looked at the Patty how many bazillion times and it still freaks me out and I get that feeling:

Don't be an ass. Whether you like Bill or not the man's never said a single bad word about anyone. As for the infant being part of a suit, anyone that's seen a clear, close up view of that part of the video knows that while it may not be a real bf infant, there's no way its part of a suit.

My take on the Freeman reports is that he did have a real sighting. Then he created a set of fake feet to bolster his claim/reputation. Does not matter that the fake feet were for a hoax or for demostration purposes - people accepted them as an attempt to hoax. If the film is legit, it is over shadowed by the fake feet. So my openion is, while the film looks good, there is no way we can be 100% sure it is not a hoax.

While the Freeman footage is fun to watch, it is unfortunate that his reputation has clouded the possible reality of the film.

This is a BF forum! Thank god we are not discussing religion, politics, or war! It was just a joke. Dont get so uptight. By the way....mspstomper, I get the stomach/butterflies watching the PG film as well.......EVERY SINGLE TIME!

One thing about the Freeman footage that strikes me as odd is the way the "creature" moves. It seems so inhumanlike. I cant say that I believe whole-heartedly that the film is not a hoax. But if that was a man in a suit hes got mad Bf skills. Is the footage in the legend meets science DVD longer? Do they zoom in or do a slow-motion of it ? I gotta get that DVD.

Yep, you need to get that DVD. It's got all kinds of extras, plus you can use your remote to pause the action and zoom in and out. It's amazing what you can see by doing that.

jay the freeman bigfoot footage does look authentic. in the footage the area looks like good habitat for sasquatch. i dont think that footage is a hoax. thats my opinion. bill green. has there been any new sightings or footprint finds in that area of the footage. im just wondering.

To me the footage has always looked hoaxed. From head to toe, the subject looks very human proportioned and its walk is hesident. The Patterson film meanwhile, is completely opposite. In my opinion, after watching both films 25 billion times, and by appearance alone, my conclusion is: If Patty's real their is no way Freeman's footage is real. It's not that two creatures can't be different (as no two humans are the same) it's just that to me one creature looks real and natural and the other looks unnatural and staged. I think it's possible Freeman may have found real tracks either in the beginning or throughout his lifetime, yet his film was a poor frustrated attempt to convince people he was sincere.

I believe that Freeman faked the tracks out of desperation. He propably spent countless hours in the woods looking for BF after an encounter in the same area, then he decided to fake tracks to get publicity.

Wasn´t the casts that impressed Chilcutt the most made by Freeman (Walla Walla casts) by the way?

I don´t think Freeman knew about it if the footage is a hoax. I would rather believe that someone dressed up in good suit and tried to fool him.

I can't comment either way on the fidelity, but the reaction of Freeman, when he say's "there he goes," and his response after that....it just sounded like a person in complete and total shock. The footage looks real enough as well, guess we'll never know.

What dvd has the best footage of the Freeman video????

The footage is 100% inconclusive...though I'd lean heavily toward it being fake considering Freeman's activities and the overall hoakiness of the footage...

I'll toss in my two cents:

That one is fake. I have no doubts about that.

Possibly Freeman's son in a bad suit and doing a terrible job of trying to walk in it.

How did you come to such a definitive conclusion?

I hope it's not based on "the walk" after what you pointed out in the "memorial day footage" thread about basing a real/hoax opinion on "the walk".

Watch the LMS dvd! Thats all I can say. There's something in there (footage) that I bet Freeman himself never knew existed before the footage was being digitally enhanced and studied.

My thoughts concerning Freeman teaching his kids how to walk like a Bigfoot. I think a lot depends on the circumstances of his instruction. I could see this teaching being done if the kids wanted to see what a walking B.F. looked like. And if this was done, and this is very important, in a location that was relitivly in public. A city park, an open backyard or someting like that - then the report of him teaching his sons the Bigfoot walk could possibly innocent. But if someone saw Freeman out in the woods, or some other remote area where he thought he and his sons would not be observed, then we can increase the chance this is a hoax. We have heard of Freeman giving instructions on walking like a Bigfoot - but who saw him, where and what were the circumstances. The answers to these questions would be of great help. Does anyone know?

I don't like the Freeman vid. It just doesn't strike me as real.

For one thing I'm not big on Freeman's audio commentary and the way he is pointing his camera in his footage. When you're looking for a Sasquatch, you're not going to find him by pointing your camera down at the ground as you walk the path, as he does for a good portion at the start. You would lift the thing up and get shots of the woods at your eye level. I guess he's filming the footprints?

I take it in 1994 there weren't a lot of vidcams with LCD displays so I'm thinking he is looking through a black and white eyepiece the whole time.

So at some point he says that he hears rustling and branches breaking in the woods yet he continues to deliberatly film the ground for a good few seconds more, and then he slowly pans up and sees his Sasquatch. Was that an auditory clue for an accomplice to walk into frame? The little look the thing gives him is also pure Patty-like. A quick look at him and a quick look away/down. I think it looked studied and quite deliberate on the part of the film subject (BTW it looks like a pretty good Sasquatch suit though)

If I were to hear a noise in the woods (especially if I am following bigfoot tracks) I'd freeze, look towards it and the camera would move to where I looked immediatly after that. Freeman keeps moving slowly and takes a long time to pan up. Maybe they did a few takes and he found it was easier to catch the figure panning up from the ground than it was to have it enter the frame at horizontal eye level. Presumably because it would have to be hiding behind something on the right (big thick tree or dense folliage) for Freeman not to see it (he was pretty close) before it stepped into view. That could be why he keeps the vidcam pointed down at the ground so long until he sees it.

He never mentions a stench. I hear Sasquatches stink and you smell them before you ever see them(something about going to the bathroom and having a hairy butt).
He's also making quite a bit of noise. You'll hardly see regular animals in the woods making noise like that. They hear you and take off. Were these deaf Sasquatches?

And the Baby lift.. Memorial Day supposedly has a baby lift (it's a mask lift I think), some, uhh, people say Patty has a baby clinging to her gut in the Patterson vid. When did all these Bigfoot babies start to crop up?

Ain't as good as the PG film. Some would call the Freeman one inconclusive, I would call it highy suspect.

Zartimas, A Bigfoot does not always smell. There are many reports of them giving off a stench, and other reports when they do not. And we do not know why this is so. Could it be that males do and females don't. I do not know if there has been a correlation between stench and the creatures sex. But smell is not an absolute when talking about the creature.

If the wind is from the wrong direction, you wouldn't smell one no matter how bad they stink. Smell should have nothing to do with it.

According to Gimlin and Patterson, Patty smelled bad in the PG film. She appeared to be female<grin>.. I've not heard any connection between sex and smell, but I have read of sightings that did not involve any.

I always like the reports I read that involve smell, because smell can invoke memories like no other senses. Also, a smell is almost never hoaxed. You don't hear of anyone coating their fake bigfoot suit in feces before head'n on out to spook people by the highway.

I'm sure it's possible to have a valid sighting and not smell a stench, I just find that when that sense is reported along with the other stuff, sight and sound, it becomes more credible. My thoughts on the Freeman film certainly do not hinge on smell.

It could be a wind direction thing as you say, and it appeared to be a pretty still that day. I don't hear any heavy wind on the vidcam mic.

It's said that Chimps and Gorrillas have a sense of smell only slightly better than ours. It's good but not great, so maybe the big guy is along those lines. If he was upwind and Sasquatch could smell Freeman, I'm not so sure that a Sasquatch can smell as good as some other animals and bug out before being seen.

Perhaps being upwind/downwind of a Sasquatch is a non-issue when it comes to detection, but I'll always put more stock in the reports where he stinks, just because I think it's a detail that a hoaxer will most certainly overlook.

I agree completely about having more belief for a report that not only mentions smell, but can also describe it.
However, as a hunter I do know this for a fact; it doesn't take much wind for an odor to carry, very little in fact.
With deer, elk and bear, down wind is down wind, no matter wind speed.

It's GARBAGE................i've posted on this topic seversal toimes before.....no matter how many times it comes up, it's still GARBAGE......

IMHO, it is a fake. Seems too staged. As I've always said, the Patterson film is the only one I have seen that gives me goosebumps. THAT one is real. Now, as believers, we need to get more footage and proof. Not these goofy clips on news shows, but honest proof that our hairy buddy is out there. I just hope when that time comes we are able to do it peacefully without harming one.
Just my $ .02

If it is a fake, then....

Why do Freeman almost cry?

Why did he start to shake the camera seeming really shocked, while whispering "Jesus" with a crying voice?

What´s the thing with the dangling legs that the BF lifts up in the end?

Freeman seems to be a pretty good actor!

What has me bothered about the Freeman film, is look at the subject when he first starts walking. He looks down sharply at his feet or the ground, like a person would do in a confined mask, to make sure he doesn't trip.

Doesn't hold water for me right from the get-go.

This is one I have refrained from commenting on so far but here is my .02 on it. First I will say I'm not willing to fully support it or fully dismiss it.

First of all IMO not even the PG film is conclusive evidence because it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be real or faked. It would never stand up in court and neither would Freeman's Film. (Just as a side note I do lean toward the PG film being real.)

So since I am not willing to go one way or the other fully what am I left with?

Freeman is filming the ground because he is looking at prints. This alone doesn’t tell you much one way or the other.

He pans up to spot a BF creature. Yes, it does seem as though it was staged that way and it could be but it's also not beyond the realm of possibility that it really just happened that way. We also don't know that Freeman is actually looking thru the eye while the camera is pointed down. It's possible he could have had the camera aimed down while he is looking up and notices the creature and then brings the camera up to focus in on the creature. I have seen debate about why he moves so slow after spotting it. Well, I for one would probably have done the same thing. You don't want to spook the subject and I for one wouldn't want to get too close either. There has been great debate about his reaction and verbalization. I find his reaction to be quite genuine considering this is someone out looking for BF and not just accidentally stumbling onto one on a nature hike. And of course he could just be a good actor but I would have no way to know.

As for the creature. I agree that the suit if it is a suit is a pretty darn good one. Better then the ones I've seen used on all these BF movies etc. Would Freeman have the financial means to purchase a better then Hollywood caliber BF suit? That’s questionable at best. The movement of the BF to turn and look at the camera and then look down at the ground does seem to be a bit too human but who's to say a real BF doesn't look where it's stepping? I mean we do that. Why wouldn't BF do that? Who's to say that maybe the "child" that allegedly gets lifted later isn't at the BF's feet and he/she isn't just immediately looking down to check on the location of it’s child? The fact is that we do not know enough about BF behavior to be able to say that the watching where I'm walking movement isn't just normal for the animal and I don't think you can dismiss the film solely on that point as many seem to do.

The bottom line is that IMO there is not enough evidence to firmly lean either way with this one. It could be totally staged or it could be some of the best footage since the PG film. Unfortunately we will likely never know.

Ok, you can start picking me apart now.

Freeman´s reaction when he first sees the BF is the same reaction as most of us would have in the same situation.

He whispered Jesus with an almost crying voice and he started shaking the camera seeming very shocked.

The interview he did seemed credible as well. I remembered that he said something like "I though that If the Good lord would let me live through this I would nether bother him again"

Yeah, it's my personal opinion that this video is also fake. Too many coicidences... plus, Freeman wasn't exactly known for being truthful. It'd be interesting to get ahold of the people who knew Freeman well and what they have to say about the video.

I totally agree!

Freeman's reaction seemed totally sincere to me and the fact that he had trouble focusing the camera after the initial sighting tells me this was a real close encounter.

Call Greg Long. I'm sure he's ready for a sequel.

Other than tracks to spook the neighbors, what track fakery did he do?

On the other hand, when he shouts "Oh there he goes" it just sounds funny. It's like he's watching an uncle cross the street in front of him and not an 8ft tall hairy apelike creature.

Lyndon wrote (in regards to the Freeman footage)





I know it may be hard for some on this site to believe, but I fully agree with Lyndon here . On the other hand, what impresses me about the footage is, what appears to me to be, a really quick head turn. Overall though, given Freeman's other activities in Sasquatchery, I'm more on the skeptical side in relation to his footage.

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle.

I better go and write something stupid again quick.

I'm on the skeptical side when it comes to this bit of footage too but even if I wasn't the image is just too fleeting and obscure to tell anything. You just can't see enough.

I think the footage deserve an enhancement just like the PG film .

Didn´t Freeman cast a couple of the prints that really convinced Chilcutt in the same area (Walla Walla) by the way?

But the P/G footage is much much better. I don't see what any enhancement can do to the Freeman footage as it's too obscure to start off with.

I'd like to get a close up look at that face on the Freeman footage. From the distance it's seen on the film, IMO it looks like the face of a gorilla costume.....and not a very good one at that.

It's been mentioned before but the head looks way too small for the body and something I don't think looks right. It doesn't seem in proportion to me.

A number of drawing from sightings show a head out of proportion to the rest of the body. They might be real, but they do bother me.

The PG film It much better obviously but an enhancement of the Freeman face shot on the BFRO intropage as well as the "baby" dangling is for sure worth doing unless the footage is proven to be a fake.

If you have the Legend Meet Science DVD, use the pause and the zoom feature on your DVD remote when the thing turns and looks at Freeman. You can get in there pretty close if you do this.