Paul Freeman Footage.....believe It Or Not?

[masterbarber]

Chilcutt mistook (albeit innocently enough)

as Dermal ridges on several alleged BF casts.

[Old Dog]

See, that's the problem.  For every piece proffered as evidence, we get an argument as to why it is invalid.  People chose sides and the arguments ensue with no solid resolution.  The only thing left to do it to decide for ones self what you will or will not accept as evidence (notice I didn't say proof) and weight both sides and decide for yourself whether it is or isn't evidence according to you.  The whole realm of proof is another thing.  That argument is much like the argument for evidence but with much more passion. LOL.  I guess the old adage holds true for that argument.  "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. ~

Arthur Schopenhauer

Edited June 4, 2013 by Old Dog

[HOLDMYBEER]

Summarizing the chapter only serves to reduce the many details and facts to a simple story.  I encourage every individual to read not just that 22 page chapter but the underlying body of knowledge explained in the book that goes to form the analysis. 

 

In 1982 Freeman reported finding tracks within a national forest where he worked.  Forest Service administrators called Joel Hardin and asked if he was willing to examine the tracks. They sent a plane over and transported Joel to the location. He spent time with Freeman and examined the site. Hardin formed the opinion the tracks were hoaxed. I remember the chapter describing Freeman's behavior as suspicious but I don't remember the precise details.

 

As a side note, I don't think Joel Hardin is closed to the idea of there being something like sasquatch. I  consulted with him about his being available to respond on recent track finds and he seemed willing to do so. It turned out not being necessary.

 

[Guest]

Old Dog, plussed you up again. You need to stop being so clever.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Elaine

[masterbarber]

See, that's the problem.  For every piece proffered as evidence, we get an argument as to why it is invalid.  

Argument?

 

What I saw in that video was a perfectly logical explanation for what was the most likely cause of the "dermals" in some of the casts. People will always make up there own minds what they think is valid or not. Anything purported to be evidence (or proof) of existence should be able to withstand scrutiny. JMO

[Old Dog]

Masterbarber, my statement was a general view of an overall situation, not an attack on your comment.  I read the article you sited and it is a valid argument, but then it is an argument none the less.

 

ar·gu·ment  [ahr-gyuh-muhnt] 

noun

1.

an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.

2.

a discussion involving differing points of view; debate: They were deeply involved in an argument aboutinflation.

3.

a process of reasoning; series of reasons: I couldn't follow his argument.

4.

a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

5.

an address or composition intended to convince or persuade; persuasive discourse.

[masterbarber]

Umm, Yeah Okay.

 

Back to Freeman on the OT.

 

Here is some more info on him so folks can make up there own minds:

 

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

[Guest LarryP]

How did he hoax the footage?

[Cotter]

Thx for the links all.

 

I forgot about the left, right, left, left trackway deal. That's pretty tough to overcome.

 

In doing a separate search regarding the footage and alleged 'baby' clinging to the creature, I came across a forum where a poster commented something along the line that 'if this were a creature of the woods, why would it plow through 1/2 the tree going by'.....I thought that was an interesting comment as well.

 

[Old Dog]

Umm, Yeah Okay.

 

Back to Freeman on the OT.

 

Here is some more info on him so folks can make up there own minds:

 

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

 

I don't see anything in that article that one can use to make up their mind one way or the other.  I really can't say if he did or didn't hoax anything.  I have read many articles on this and not one proves a hoax, nor does he ever admit to it.  Until it's proven one way or the other it is just evidence to be judged on it's own merit.  As far as him being considered a "kook", who among us has not had that reaction from people for just being interested in Bigfoot, let alone professing that we had evidence of one?  You're always going to get someone who is going to offer an argument against Bigfoot existence, and will call whom ever comes up with evidence a kook, or much worse.  For myself I believe that it's possible that the Freeman footage could possibly be genuine.  It really isn't clear or detailed enough to actually see what it is, so it is equally possible to be real as it is to be fake.  At this point, it's just footage of something in the woods.  Is it compelling?  Sure.  Is it real?  maybe.  Is it fake?  Again, maybe.  The only fact that I'm sure of is it's certainly something in the woods walking.

[masterbarber]

I have trouble swallowing much of Freeman's claims. He was either embellishing his "encounters" or he was a BF magnet.

[roguefooter]

See, that's the problem.  For every piece proffered as evidence, we get an argument as to why it is invalid.  

 

The way I see it is this- if it can be replicated then it isn't going to have much value, so toss it.

 

I'll take one quality piece of evidence over a boat load of weak evidence any day. For some reason people here fight over every little scrap as if more is going to somehow equate proof- it's not.

[Old Dog]

I have trouble swallowing much of Freeman's claims. He was either embellishing his "encounters" or he was a BF magnet.

 

LOL, I have the same issue with Moneymaker, so I understand your point.

 

See, that's the problem.  For every piece proffered as evidence, we get an argument as to why it is invalid.  

 

The way I see it is this- if it can be replicated then it isn't going to have much value, so toss it.

 

I'll take one quality piece of evidence over a boat load of weak evidence any day. For some reason people here fight over every little scrap as if more is going to somehow equate proof- it's not.

 

 

Agreed, if quantity was all it took, we wouldn't have an issue, it would be settled.  Trouble is, unless you wade through all the dross, you'll most likely miss that one quality piece of evidence.  I'm still waiting for that one quality piece.

[Guest LarryP]

I have trouble swallowing much of Freeman's claims. He was either embellishing his "encounters" or he was a BF magnet.

 

So, what about the "footage" ?

 

Seems like no one wants to discuss the footage? 

[Guest]

OK.  The person in the freeman footage looks like a big lumbering oaf that possesses zero of the ninja qualities ascribed to BF.  Where is the awareness?  Where is the camera detection?  Where is the speed?  No vocals?  No tree-knocking stick?  If they looked and behaved liked that we'd have wiped them out with the wooly mammoths.