Wednesday, December 28, 2011

The Mysteries of the Paul Freeman Footage



     Even among sasquatch researchers, most do not realize just how enigmatic the above footage, shot by ultimate field man Paul Freeman, truly is. There are several mysteries that surround this genuine video footage of a sasquatch, taken in 1984. The first mystery is just who owns the legal rights to the footage.  
     With the death of Freeman in 2003, it is assumed that rights to the Freeman footage reverted to his widow, Nancy.  But all my attempts to locate her and verify this have proven futile. Paul lived in the eastern Washington town of Walla Walla,  prior to his death. he also kept a cabin on the Washington coast around Long Beach. None of the Freemans I contacted in those towns claim any connection to Paul or even knew of him. Meanwhile, two separate individuals, one representing a TV show, have approached me in hopes of finding Nancy Freeman, or whoever else currently holds rights to this famed footage. And so I issue this appeal to hear from anyone who might know who currently hods the rights to the Freeman footage.
     This question of ownership is a far easier one to answer than the questions and mysteries that are inherent in the video clip itself. Authenticity of the clip is  one big question in the minds of some, but not for me.  Just prior to his death, Paul and Nancy Freeman came to my house in Oregon to do an interview for a British TV production. An informed and competent interviewer quizzed Paul on numerous aspect of his field work in general and the video in particular.  As his wife sat facing him only ten feet distant, Paul insisted that the footage was authentic. That's good enough for me. I don't think there are too many souls who, staring their own  mortality in the face, not to mention their life-long spouse, would sit there and tell lies. But beyond  circumstantial evidence and personal assurances, the video itself, especially when the whole raw footage is viewed, bespeaks an authenticity that is not as evident when the much the shorter clip taht is usually found on internet sources is viewed. 
     Prior to filming the subject of interest, the footage made on Paul's camcorder shows a trackway that Paul found near Deduck Springs. On t he video, he competently documents the trackway which he credits to a juvenile sasquatch. Then he makes multiple plaster casts, measurements, and of course, video documentation. What most may not realize is that Freeman had been schooled by Dr. Grover Krantz in how to cast and measure trackways.  
     Freeman's detailed knowledge of the remote Blue Mountains and his keen sense of animal tracking was valued by Dr. Krantz, who saw Freeman as the most experienced and competent field man in the area surrounding Pullman, Washington, where Krantz was a professor at Washington State.  Freeman was so prolific at uncovering bigfoot evidence that some, like Dahinden and Byrne, doubted his honesty, and they said so on multiple occasions.  It is my considered opinion that their statements stemmed from a combination of ego and narrow range of experience that prevented these high-profile researchers from accepting the fact that Freeman was far more capable and successful at gathering the much sought evidence than they would ever be. 
     Yet for all his savvy as a field man, Freeman lived an austere life in which money was always tight. While some suppose that money was the root motivation for fakery, I would point out that on such limited means, Freeman could not have pulled off the costuming ruse on his video that is alleged by some.  And, the raw footage clearly shows the work of a diligent and well-trained field man.  What is not seen on the video footage is a short clip between the casting of a trackway and the creature segment.  Between these to segments was a short clip of a child's birthday party at a restaurant. I removed the segment out of privacy concerns but its existence on the original camcorder tape illustrates to my satisfaction that Freeman was using his one and only camcorder for anything and everything of intereste in his life that was worth documenting on video tape. While the sasquatch research was the reason for the camcorder;'s existence, Freeman was just a regular guy with a regular life including relatives' birthday party in between trips to the Blue Mountains in search of sasquatch evidence. 
     But there is yet another, more compelling reason why I am absolutely certain that Freeman didn't fake anything: He could not have possibly done so. I direct the viewer's attention to the time stamp on the video as seen on the YouTube-posted segment. At time 4:08, just as Freeman utters, "Oh, there he goes!" the subject steps behind what looks to be a grand fir tree trunk that is between 12 and 18 inches in diameter.  And remarkably, an instant later, the creature steps out from behind another, still smaller tree, that looks to be about a foot distant of the first tree. Yet, the subject is never seen to cross what appears to be an open gap between the two trees!  The quality of the video and the distance to the subject makes it difficult to be absolutely certain of the gap between the two trees but, to the best of my ability to discriminate, it does appear that there is a gap between the two trees. To the extent that  folks like to post replies to these blog posts, I invite them to offer their own opinions of this question in the comments box at the bottom of this post.
     The very first time I ever watched this video, this anomaly jumped off the screen at me, yet it seems that this oddity is not perceived by most who view this clip. One person who did notice it was Dar Addington, a long time friend of Freeman's.  I recently spoke with Dar while trying to locate Freeman's widow, Nancy. Dar reflected on the many evenings that she, Wes Summerlin, and Vance Orchard spent in Paul's basement, viewing the footage over and over again, trying to resolve that very question of just what was going with respect to the subject of the vieo and the two trees. Between them, the group just could not come up with an answer for just what the video shows. Nor can I, but it kinda looks paranormal.  
     Some suppose that the subject passed behind the first tree, ducked down, crossed the gap between the trees, then stood back up to emerge from behind the second tree. Of course, it makes no sense whatsoever that, if concealment was the purpose, the subject would stand back up and proceed on its merry way in plain sight. On the other end of the spectrum of possibilities, I know of persons who seriously postulate that something truly paranormal in nature has been dutifully documented by Freeman's eighties-era camcorder. Indeed, I know of other witnesses who insist they saw a sasquatch step behind a tree that was too narrow to conceal its broad and bulky form, then disappear. (see pg.169, The Locals, author: moi). I hesitate to get all paranormal in a post like this that is read by every Tom, Dick, and Harriet sasquatch researcher on six continents, but I'll do it anyway because the mystery seems to be right there on the tape. Most will say that there is not really a gap of empty space between the trees. That seems likely, but that isn't the way it appears to me. Just sayin'
     Now for the next mystery: At time stamp 4:13 on the video, the subject gives a very quick glance toward the videographer (Freeman).  This is huge for two reasons. First, it defies the view that a costumed person is the subject.  The flick of the head is so rapid that a head inside a costume hood would spin independently of the mask.  No person is an costume would risk such a move unless the hood was glued to their head.  Sorry skeptics, but that flick of the head say one thing to me that isd loud and clear: That ain't no mask! And here is the second problem: that very same move defies everything that is assumed to be true about the sasquatch creatures based on study of the Patterson-Gimlin footage (PGF). 
     Even a narrowly experienced armchair researcher seems know that "Patty," the subject in the PGF turns her entire upper torso in order to asses the cameraman's (Patterson's) intent. The way the whole upper torso pivots is seen as an indication that the subject is indeed a 'great ape,' and that is how great apes, with thick upper necks, have to move in order to look back. Well, that may be fine for the subject in the PGF, but the subject in the Freeman footage moves exactly like a person would. The upper torso barely pivots. It give a quick flick of the head and all the motion is taken up in the neck. If apes have to rotate their upper torso, this ain't no ape! 
     Some see this as an indication of fakery, but I would argue that they are overly committed to a point of view that is based on one prior data set, and that is the PGF.  If Freeman was involved in fakery, he had over a decade to study the PGF before he made his video.  Wouldn't he have his confederate in the costume  replicate the movements seen in the PGF for purposes of consistency?  Speaking of consistency, what's with the pot belly on the subject of the Freeman footage? Either it's a pregnant female or a somewhat rotund creature of either gender. Why would fakers add that feature and display more contradictions to the view that sasquatches are robust and agile creatures? Just as with the breasts on Patty, st seems to be a risky addition to a costuming ruse if believability is the goal.
      The next item is the better yet.   At 4:15, (just as Freeman exclaims, "Jeezus!") the subject steps behind a ten-or-so-year-old Douglas fir tree and stops cold. Freeman lowers the camcorder (presumably to secure his footing,) then raises it again.  Based on some rapid camera movements, he seems to be experiencing difficulty locating the now-motionless subject that is hiding behind the young tree.  The astuteness of this move by the video subject cannot be overstated. Until the subject moves again, it is utterly indistinguishable from the tree in front of it.  At least to me, this speaks volumes of the subjects knowledge of camouflage and concealment.  Whatever the subject is, that thing knew exactly how to use its adaptive coloration and profile in conjunction with the native foliage to utterly conceal itself in plain sight. How many times has the armchair researcher read eyewitness accounts that describe a creature that concealed itself in plain sight by remaining completely motionless.  That is exactly what we see here, and in that respect, the degree of savvy displayed by the subject surpasses anything we see on the PGF.  Despite its inferior image quality, the Freeman footage is actually more informative than the PGF in this respect. It gives us much more information about creature cleverness and concealment in response to human presence. 
     And the mysteries do not end there. Another huge question in my mind is where the subject ultimately went. Freeman puzzles over this matter audibly on the video tape.   Unfortunately, Paul took his camera off the subject for a brief instant as he secured his footing, and never saw it again.  He can be heard to utter, "There's two of 'em" but it is never clear what makes him say this.  One must assume he heard "brush popping from two separate locations. "Where'd he go?" Paul asks as he scans the forest through the viewfinder.
     In my view, there are only three possible answers to this question. The first one is that the subject hid behind another bush. Or, it dropped to the ground and stayed there. There are witnesses who describe a sasquatch belly-crawling on the ground to avoid detection. This move does have precedent in the annals of eyewitness sasquatch sighting reports. The problem is that Freeman was so close to it. As he continued to approach the place where the subject was last seem,  it seems like Freeman would have stepped on it if it was lying on the ground, and seen it if it was hiding behind a bush.   Then there's the third possibility that is sure to be rejected out-of-hand by any flesh-and-blood bigfooters. I'll say it anyway because it has to be considered, especially since it's what the camcorder shows. The dang thing disappeared!  Sorry, but there is also precedent for this idea.
     Paul Freeman was as flesh-and-blood as they come, but ,to his dying day, Freeman could not resolve the question of where that thing went in the moment he took his camera off of it. One thing we have definitely learned from the freeman footage is , if you ever get your lens on a sasquatch, don't take it off for any reason. I spoke with Freeman about this when he came to my house.  I didn't raise any paranormal possibilities with him but I certainly entertained them in my own mind, having already collected a number of accounts (See The Locals, Chap. 9, ibid)  One witness even claimed to have witnessed a shimmer of light as the subject of his  sighting disappeared from view in the middle an open clear cut in broad daylight.  Freeman's situation, on the other hand, is a bit more nebulous, owing to the fact that he took the camera off his subject and his visibility was significantly restricted by forest vegetation.
     Of one thing I feel certain: No hoaxer would end a hoaxed video in this way.  If Freeman and some confederate had gone to the trouble of procuring a suit, they would most surely try to construct a scene that was as credible as they could possibly make it, and that would mean having the creature shamble off over the hill, getting smaller and farther away all the while.  No hoaxer would cast aspersions on an already dubious scenario by have their costumed apparition dematerialize at close range. Yet, this seems to be one solid interpretation of what the video shows. 
     Could Paul Freeman's video clip actually be credible evidence that the sasquatch creature do indeed possess paranormal attributes? Like I said, Freeman himself certainly did not want to go there.  I, on the other hand, am not afraid to, especially since I have other accounts to support it. In any case, like it or not, it seems to be what the video shows. I reject the idea that the subject is lying on the ground, even though I considered it thoroughly.  Freeman was no dummy and he was too close to the thing to overlook it if that's what it was doing.  Heck, I expect he would have tripped over it as he attempted to follow its direction of travel.  I invite readers to weigh in on this question in the comment box below, although I cringe at the thought of what kind of vitriolic exchange this could precipitate. All I ask is that responders stick to the issue and remain civil. 
     A few conclusions can be drawn from careful study of the Paul Freeman footage. The first one is the most speculative to some but not to me: The Freeman footage is the real deal. I knew Paul well enough to know he did not and could not have faked that video.  Not only is his integrity secure in my view, but there are just too many peculiar aspects to that video that were beyond Paul's understanding, not to mention his ability to fake. 
   Another conclusion that I endorse, at the risk of enraging others, is that there is definitely something paranormal going on in that video. Even if one does not buy the bit about the creature crossing an open gap between trees, the manner in which the subject cleared the area instantaneously and at close range is extremely suspicious. A third conclusion is that the neck mobility shown in that video invalidates not only simple costuming as an explanation, but it also invalidates the idea that the subject is a lower form of primate that, like the subject in the PGF, is said to have limited neck mobility. The video clearly shows something else, and that is the same neck mobility as any person. 
     Indeed, the biggest problem with the Freeman footage is that, despite its brevity and poor resolution, it shows too much.  Upon careful examination,  it raises some deeply troubling issues, especially in the mind of those who wish to maintain an utterly flesh-and-blood interpretation of the whole sasquatch phenomenon. Of course, there is a simple way to maintain a flesh-and-blood perspective in the face of the data supplied by the Freeman footage: call it a fake.  Sorry folks, but I, for one, am not buying that,  I did my best in this essay to explain  the reasons why I don't think that works. 
    In a recent blog entry entitled, "To be or not to be..."   writer Melissa Hovey. asks,  "Are the opinions of the “paranormal crowd” so weak, they can’t withstand some questions or the scrutiny of the “flesh and blood community"?"   Scientific evidence of paranormal events seems to be a bit of a contradiction in terms but, O.K., here is it: the Freeman footage.  I'd call it evidence, but not proof.  Like it or not, I think the Freeman footage is some of the best evidence of paranormal activity you can find.  In the end, that's why the video is so damn important. But you have to look at it and look carefully, then be willing to ask some questions that don't have easy answers.  
     As Freeman himself said in the interviews I posted here, it has never been shown to be a fake, but I doubt it will seal the deal in the minds of Ms, Hovey nor to mention the Ben Radford-style skeptics. But it's still there and, based on my own investigations and interviews with Freeman himself, I'm saying it's the real deal. Now, if I could just figure out who owns the dang thing?

32 comments:

  1. If you click on the darkened type of the last two paragraphs then highlight it, it will become readable. Sorry for the problem; I think I wrote a longer post than the format allows, but something more paranormal could be going on. :-) Best to all, thom p.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Thom,my name is Michael Freeman, Paul's youngest son. Feel free to contact me.I can answer your questions.

      Delete
  2. Thom, I remember you mentioning some time back the book ‘The Sense of Being Stared At’ by Rupert Sheldrake. Bearing in mind the paranormal implications of some of your latest post about the Freeman footage, you might be interested to know that Sheldrake’s latest book ‘The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry’ is now available. Apparently, it looks at the 'scientific worldview' and why it is more a rigid belief system than it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another reference might be tracker Joel Hardin's book, "Tracker." ...Joel did a full 20 pg chapter on Freeman's track finds; an honest assessment by a professional...the good, the bad and the ugly.

    Rene is quoted as saying, "Hardin could track a mouse across a concrete floor." The U.S. Forestry Service hired Hardin in 1982 and sent a plane for him-flying him from Idaho into Washington's Mill Creek Watershed to investigate Freeman's find. What he had to say was most revealing and interesting as well.

    That said, I had Nancy's phone number but I can't find it all these years later - you might try Kevin Lindley, I have a picture of him with Freeman and the Sumerlins just before Paul passed. Brian Smith might also know where Nancy can be found.

    As for finding the paranormal in Freeman's video, come on Thom... you know better. Distances and other trees could account for the way the subject moves or didn't move. Interesting assessment.
    Bobbie

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thom,

    Interesting read. I looked at the walk between the trees and simply see the creature passing behind foliage, and away from the camera. Nothing paranormal there. Also feel that the creature could easily have continued moving further to the left and away from the camera and Paul as Paul tried to get closer after taking the camera off the subject.

    Joe

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've looked at the segment between trees several times, and it appears there's obscuring brush between the two trees. Further, in the time the subject would have been between the two trees, obscured by the brush, on watching that area closely many times, a dark patch can be seen through a small gap in the obscuring brush as the subject transits before emerging into view again.
    Poor video quality does not make the majority of obscuring brush between the two trees obvious, where the brush is even further difficult to see due to shadowing.

    No paranormal activity detected.

    Watch the segment from 4:09-4:12 a few dozen times and you'll catch the split second occlusion as the subject crosses the gap, hidden by the brush, but for one small break.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One track in particular lacks the forest litter of the surrounding soil, suggesting it was created by excavation rather than compression:

    http://orgoneresearch.com/2011/10/16/is-this-bigfoot-track-real/

    ReplyDelete
  7. Limiting the Big Guy simply to a flesh and blood creature seems damn arrogant and close minded.

    A paranormal BF cannot possibly exist, say many.

    That's no different than Radford, Nickel and Sherman claiming a flesh and blood BF cannot possibly exist either.

    Think! You can posit theories on a mystery like Thom does, but don't claim to me or anybody else what BF cannot possibly be when you know not the possibilities inherent in a mystery that no one truly knows.

    The arrogance...

    I've got my reasons for siding with Thom, but it's like arguing politics or religion. Nothing good will come of it.

    Just know here's one person that gives kudos to Thom.

    And to Henry Franzoni. And to ex-Blogsquatcher DB.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Or...

    Explain why Bigfoot is real, but UFOs are a not when history is full of such vivid personal accounts of both from all segments of society.

    The rocks look damn fine for aiming at glass houses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Love this video and the intense feeling of wonder it engenders in me, but as other commentators have already suggested, I don't see anything remotely paranormal about this.

    The moment before the being "reappears" from behind the second tree it is definitely obscured by brush, and in fact one can see his form pass through the negative space at the top of the foliage, between what could be described as a fuzzy dot on top of a fuzzy line angled 20-some degrees to the left.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I dunno Thom...

    I appreciate your sincerity in supporting Freeman, as I too believe this is un-hoaxed, real footage of a bipedal creature, and while it's nearly on par with the PG film for quality, it is weak evidence for a paranormal explanation.

    Yes, the subject looks to be nearly invisible at 4:15, (but this is not terrifically illuminating, as a bear might also be very hard to see in this lighting, with this medium quality resolution, against this foliage.)

    We're back to anecdotes for the paranormal explanation. And we have some doozies, don't we?

    Because of the strides made in video technology, FLIR and night vision cameras, I believe we're on the cusp of more concrete evidence, but I still maintain that we may never fully know all of the Bigfoot story.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have a picture of a Sasquatch shadow person ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. As far as you question weather Big Foot have paranormal ability, I find that an interesting question. Jinni is a mythological Arabic creature has lots of Paranormal and spiritual abilities. it might be also revealing to know that the stem JIN in the Arabic language mean to cover, to hid or to camouflage. seeing the amazing ability of this creature to hide and camouflage, I don't see why we can't refer to it as Jinni, the mythical spiritual creature of Arabia.

    for more about jinni read
    http://www.reference.com/browse/Jinn

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm a UK resident, but a huge Bigfoot fan! I first read an eyewitness account in a 'Fate' magazine about 50 years ago, that impressed me with its sincerity. That flagged up my antenna and when I saw the PG film that impressed even more. But when I first saw Paul's video some years ago. That too impressed me. I've watched it at regular intervals since. In my view, it's purely authentic. I'd never seen the preceding footprint part of his video before today, that only adds a dimension to its credibility. The footprints are difficult to analyze from the vid, but are among the best I've seen.

    The paranormal interpretation is not for me. As others say; the brush and sunlight and quality of image don't allow one to use that idea just because it seems to transit between trees. It could have 'disappeared' at any stage.. it didn't.

    As for when Paul lost his footing and lost sight of it. I'm a wildlife photographer and the number of times I've taken my eye off a subject and lost it is too many to recall.
    Added to that, these animals have been and are, eluding humans all the time. Paul was wheezing his way up the trail. Bigfoot might be slow in the video'd segment, but all the encounter stories I've read, indicate the swiftness and agility they have to elude man. Paul was lucky to get what sight of it he got!

    Sorry, but there is no paranormal evidence in this video. It's hard enough to get any scientific interest in video's like this, without putting them off with claims of the paranormal. This video ranks very high in my estimation.

    I was also interested in comments about this Summelin guy. He seems to be a significant influence on Paul Freeman?

    Good website!
    Regards

    Michael (Birmingham UK)

    ReplyDelete
  14. I can see it between the trees. There is a very dark bunch of branches between the trees but you can see it darken even more as the Sasquatch passes between to the larger tree.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Definitely do NOT buy into the paranormal or vanishing sasquatch theory. I feel that they are simply at one with nature and that they use skills that we humans have long since forgotten. They can blend in perfect with their surroundings and are also capable of moving quickly but silently as well. I think to claim paranormal on sightings such as this...is just explaining a mystery with another mystery and that is a place that we have no need to go. I simply do not believe in the paranormal,especially where these creatures are concerned. I respect others beliefs but I feel that when people start talking of telepathic,invisible,shape-shifting sasquatch etc. then we are moving away from science and,like it or not,science is the ONE thing that will get these beings classified and proven to be a legit species. While they may not need to be protected now,as most say,our land is vanishing at an astonishing rate and who knows what the future holds. I simply think to explain a mystery with an even bigger mystery is just going to far into hocus-pocus land. I am simply a flesh and blood believer as the creature I witnessed years ago did not vanish he was simply at ease in nature and able to easily navigate terrain that would be very difficult for us humans. No,to me the squatch are not paranormal but are just masters of their surroundings. Great site though.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I also believe that Freeman's vid is of a REAL sasquatch and not a fake. He may have faked some evidence but I feel that most of his evidence was very solid and has passed the test of some of the most acclaimed scientific sasquatch researchers(Meldrum,Krantz etc).

    ReplyDelete
  17. I also believe this to be real footage of a real pregnant female. I also see her pass behind the trees barely before emerging and glancing over at Paul. I also love where he captures the other females pick up the child from the stump at 5:08 - 5:11 this proves authenticity to me more than any other aspect as you see the little legs comes up just as you would your own childs legs, amazing. I have also seen some pretty amazing camoflaging by octopus and lizards so why not a BF? And finally authenticity proves itself here as the different sizes of feet and direction of travel changes from say 3 y/0 to adult after plastering footage and just before creature or as I prefer ferral human apprears.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Not meaning to criticize, but have the authors of opinions that sasquatches can "disappear" or "dematerialize" EVER spent any time in the woods, observing, when you can, the habits and abilities of known animals? As my dear gross anatomy and pathophysiology professor once told an old class of his, "when you hear hoof beats around here, think horses, not zebras".
    I would ask these folks, if sasquatches can dematerialize, then can rabbits? How about deer? Squirrels anyone? Well I personally have seen all of these animals disappear, almost before my eyes, into unbelievably small patches of vegetation or other cover, and remain there, completely motionless and undetectable, until their pursuer, through ever closing proximity, finally triggered their fight or flight and they sprang from said cover to run to another, freeze, and try this effective and elegant evasion and SURVIVAL tactic once again. This behavior has nothing to do with "cleverness". It is instinct, pure, simple, and beautiful, no more or less valuable than "cleverness", but certainly different.
    The animals that we still have on Planet Earth have evolved survival instincts over a very long time period. These instincts do not defy the laws of nature and physics, though they may seem to when exposed to the untrained or inexperienced eye. If sasquatches are real animals, and I believe that to be a possibility, they are subject to the same laws of this planet, and the universe, that all physical, flesh and blood beings are. To suggest otherwise, to suggest the ability to teleport or dematerialize, neither of which is possible, delegitimizes any talk of this animal as a possible unknown species, and contributes to the continued ignoring of the possibility by mainstream science. For those of you who believe teleportation or dematerialization as a possible explanation as to why sasquatches seem to disappear quickly after a sighting, I challenge you to put down the Avengers comic book, cut off the SyFy channel, put down the chips bag, get out of the recliner or off the couch, and go find some woods to explore. They are usually teeming with life you will have to work VERY hard to see in many cases. Walk, and watch for the infrequent animal that you scare up, and see how quickly it disappears again. I assure you Scotty did not beam it aboard the Starship Enterprise when it does. It is merely doing what nature has spent millennia shaping for it; surviving. Let us hope that the sasquatch continues to do the same, and when we talk, let’s talk about it logically and scientifically, and not as if it is some “paranormal” monster. If it’s here, it’s an animal, and like the mountain gorilla, it will one day be known to us, and an animal we will hopefully love, respect, and seek to protect.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Been hearing the same conversation (seen directly above) for over twenty years: "Not meaning to criticize...put down the Avenger's comic book...put down the chips bag...it's not some paranormal monster...it will one day be known to us...an animal we will love, respect, and seek to protect." always stated anonymously. Are we referring to a population of powerful and mysterious beings or your future wife? I remember when I felt that way, twenty years ago. Those were the days.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Have a look at 5:09 - 5:12. The black blob in the middle of the frame, is it something moving (the creature) or is that camera shake/camera movement? I can't decide.

    Also, there is no paranormal activity here. I can see the creature all the time. It just goes dim as it steps into an unlit area.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is interesting, the post by 'Willpower' and Thom's response. Willpower wants to prove, once and for all that we have a flesh and blood creature to add to the taxonomy.
    He won't tolerate any paranormal nonsense.

    Thom, you took this (a little bit) personal, and it's understandable, since 'The Locals' clearly allows for the inexplicable in a good number of witness reports.

    The funny thing is, as long as we do not have a body to examine the extreme contentions of people like Eric Bjeckjord (sp) are just as viable as the likelihood of our Forest Friend being a living throwback to early humans.

    Personally, though I have spent a good deal of time hiking throughout the Pac. Northwest, I still side with you, Thom, in that we CANNOT discount so many credible (and incredibly fascintating) witness accounts that include paranormal aspects. If Mr. Willpower would read up on the work of Dr. John Mack or Dr. David Jacob, he might think differently about the potential of Bigfoot to have a collusional relationship with that other boogey man of the ether, E.T.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Thom,
    Greetings! I stumbled upon your blog page today while researching the new film 'Letters From The Big Man'. I am also looking forward to reading your book soon 'The Locals'.
    I (like you) also believe that 'Squatch is much more than just a relict hominid species, and much closer tro humans than most are comfortable to admit. I had something happen to me roughly 14 years ago which has affected me in a big way ever since. When I tried telling fellow BF enthusiasts about my experiences (I had 2 in the same place 2 yrs. apart), I was met with some harsh words from certain members of the BF community. But I have never faltered in my beliefs, nor changed my story-what happened HAPPENED-and I felt what I felt. I actually wound up being turned off to alot of the 'mainstream' BF'ers-especially the BFRO. When I TRIED telling them about what happened, I was treated like a 'wacko', and finally ignored. Oh well-that is their loss. the BFRO is NOT the 'be all end all' of Sasquatch research. Matter of fact-they will NEVER make any major breakthroughs like they feel they deserve. And that is due to Sasquatch being much MORE than what they feel it is-and it's INTELLIGENCE. Sure-I visit the site often to read reports-but avoid their self-centered rants in which they feel they have it all figured out. I have ZERO desire to get any 'glory', or any publicity. I prefer to remain on the 'fringe' so to speak. I am about an hour from a 'hotspot' of activity in (of all places) New Jersey. This part of NJ is very close to Pennsylvania which also has alot of BF activity. I won't go into detail here on your blog-but if you are ever interested in hearing what happened to me-feel free to contact me!
    Regards-
    Bobby

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thom,,thanks for such a detailed and fascinating analysis and review of,,IMO,,one of the best video evidence in BFs history. I have to agree on many things you've said,,with the single most,,in my book,that flip of the head. Remarkable indeed. I've read a lot about Mr Freeman. And from what I've gathered he was a dedicated individual that got that glimpse we all hope for. Outstanding Sir!

    ReplyDelete
  24. I give you credit. Trying to convince people that this stuff (ie the weirder aspects of the already weird) is possible is beyond the desire/energy of many. I use the word possible out of habit to avoid that dance with the 'undiscovered monkey' group. I will take things a bit further though, out of respect for your 'going out on a limb' style of work...they can not only perform the disappearing act, they have the ability/wiring to take things 'personal', in a serious way. That eliminates any sort of 'monkey business' in my mind.

    Found this entry though a link from Dave P.s NA Bigfoot page. I really enjoyed your opinion of the Freeman film. I've been sold since seeing that 'quick peek' type of head movement. The other things you mentioned have me revisting the film after many years.

    Stay Safe

    ReplyDelete
  25. Freeman said he could shoot one, if so why not dart one with a tranquillizer? That's a lot more practical than digging a big ass hole! Ever try to dig in that part of the country , a big enough hole to catch a bigfoot! Well we know bigfoot love to joy ride in backhoes ,seems perfect for duping a sasquatch into a trap! Sorry I hope its real, but at this rate we won't see anything believable again till after 2020! Hoaxers my god what a joke, come up with something new. The state of things regarding this phenomenon on line are just terrible see you in 7years.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Freeman said he could shoot one, if so why not dart one with a tranquillizer? That's a lot more practical than digging a big ass hole! Ever try to dig in that part of the country , a big enough hole to catch a bigfoot! Well we know bigfoot love to joy ride in backhoes ,seems perfect for duping a sasquatch into a trap! Sorry I hope its real, but at this rate we won't see anything believable again till after 2020! Hoaxers my god what a joke, come up with something new. The state of things regarding this phenomenon on line are just terrible see you in 7years.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think the visibility between the two trees is so poor you can not actually see it
    (I can) move between the two trees BECAUSE there is some other vegetation or large tree that gives horrible lighting and it appears to mirage itself. It could have been there just not see. I THINK I can see a pixel or two of the squatch as it passes between the two trees AND behind another piece of foilage.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi Thom. My name is Michael Freeman, Paul's youngest son. I can answer your questions, and let you know who owns the footage . feel free to contact me.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Michael, I'd love to talk. Can you e-mail me at thom_powell2002@yahoo.com ?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Email sent.hopefully that comes through for you.

    ReplyDelete
  31. It is flesh and blood. Paranormal yeah right. Thom talks but has not one bit of prove to back it up. Prove it or shut up with this bull about paranormal. You shoot one with a 12 gauge 3 inch magnum German Breneke black magic shell it is going down. It will bleed to death from the 4 inch wide 19 inch deep hole it will tear into the ugly apes face, won't be much of a head left. It is nothing more than an wild animal. You like getting into the paranormal Satan and his demons will have some fun with you.

    ReplyDelete