Jump to content

PAUL FREEMAN video, 1992


Recommended Posts

Daniel Perez

In just about every on line source you see for Paul Freeman's Deduct Springs video is referenced to 1994. (Google it for yourself). Most notably it is seen in Dr. Jeff Meldrum's Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, and also the documentary of the same name that was released as a video in 2003.  THIS IS WRONG!  That mistake just kept getting repeated by drag and paste "researchers."  The video was shot on August 20, 1992. Had the research community thought long and hard about the topic, and critically, they might have asked, exactly WHEN in 1994, the month and day.  Critical thinkers would ask, "does the foliage match the time of year the video was allegedly shot?"

 

It is not my intention to fact shame someone but the issue has gone on for quite some time and there is a need to get the facts straight once and for all. Facts do matter. Imagine if someone stated the P-G film was shot in 1966 -- just how many people would be all over that error in less than a heartbeat.

 

What most researchers missed was the national broadcast of Paul Freeman's video the same year is was shot, on Hard Copy later in the year. I have provided a snipet from that broadcast and it is very clear it would be impossible to have been filmed in 1994, unless  you entertain "alternative facts."

 

And it does not appear the video was shot in Washington state, as Paul stated. It was most likely filmed in OREGON. But a note with regard to Paul Freeman. This was not intended as deception. The exact area is so close to the Washington border and the road there goes into Washington and Oregon so at any given time you may not know whether you are in Oregon or Washington.  As for the date, Paul Freeman was not deceptive with that information, it was the research community that bungled on that fact.

 

There is a lot more information about the videotape that most people are unaware of or simply forgot, but more on that later.

 

Daniel Perez

Editor/publisher

www.bigfoottimes.net

 

Screen Shot 2020-07-20 at 6.42.43 PM.png

Screen Shot 2020-07-20 at 6.42.21 PM.png

Edited by Daniel Perez
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin

Thanks for sharing.

It seems to me that the reason there is lack of interest in the Freeman footage.

Most proponents I am related to or are acquaintances are not impressed by the footage.

The Patterson film subject looks the part.

 

The Freeman subject looks like a fat dude in a suit carefully stepping along. Not fluid like the Patterson subject.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Is this thread about people getting a date wrong and missing a Hard Copy segment in 1994? Or is that when you noticed the discrepancy with foliage. And on the Oregon/Washington border no less? This is a 30 year old press release addressing the sizzling Freeman video controversy. Perhaps you will have more extensive coverage in your hard copy newspaper generated in a digital age. Well done Daniel, even though you won't return to this thread to defend your position. You are most likely laser focused on your next breaking news. Maybe retreading the PGF microsecond by microsecond. There has got to be a clue that MK and all the other hyper focused "researchers" did not catch but Daniel Perez will! Can't wait for the news to break on that discovery (whatever it is, it's got to be very exciting). 

Edited by Arvedis
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Daniel Perez

Hello Arvedis: it is just a matter of setting the record straight and factual. As a matter of fact, the Hard Copy piece aired in 1992, not 1994 as you wrote.

 

Perhaps you are also unaware  I have rocks that Patty stepped on from October 20, 1967. They were removed from her trackway by George Haas.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bearfoot

Daniel Perez is totally correct when he said "facts do matter"! I go to this forum almost every day and I sometimes see things that I don't believe to be true. Nothing wrong with correcting statements that simply aren't accurate. Have only  been here a few months and finally catching up on all the older posts! Really enjoyed them! I keep saying to myself someday someone will come up with the concrete evidence!  :D 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
56 minutes ago, Daniel Perez said:

Perhaps you are also unaware  I have rocks that Patty stepped on from October 20, 1967. They were removed from her trackway by George Haas.

 

 

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

What does that have to do with anything that Arvedis said?

 

 

Edited by BlackRockBigfoot
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

What it says is that Daniel  is not a scoftic.    He's not out to disprove bigfoot via holes in how someone else told the story.

 

I find the Freeman footage beyond merely interesting.   I know people who knew him well.  Paul seemingly went to his grave not noticing the third bigfoot, the little one because he never mentioned it to them when they'd view the footage, the third bigfoot was something someone else noticed later.    (I don't recall who it was, maybe Doug Hajicek?  Daniel probably knows.)  I've never seen a hoaxer who wasn't gleeful about pointing out details they want people to see in their hoax.    It doesn't jibe as a hoax, certainly not one Paul was involved in.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

We as a community tend to put the PGF on a pedestal. Me included.

 

The pitfall in doing so is that it also erodes the PGF.

 

1) In order for this species to survive it needs a base breeding population. Naturally if Patty is real and was filmed? Other individuals will be also. If not? Problem.

 

2) Patty looked a certain way, walked a certain way. That doesn’t mean other individuals will match her. They may not even resemble the same species. One could be black, 40 lbs and on all fours like a baby. Maybe it’s just a baby?

 

3) Hoaxing IS a problem. What’s real or fake? Should we as a community invest so much time and energy into fighting over old videos and photos?

 

4) The Freeman film. I’ve never liked it. The creature seems to be watching were it’s feet go. But have I watched were my feet go? Yes. Especially when I’m barefoot. Or when I was sick with vertigo last year. It’s not inconceivable. 
 

5) Physical evidence trumps all. But I think going forward all video locations should be checked out. Just in case. If the videographer will not reveal the film location. Red flag. Move on.

 

Videos should only represent a means to an end.

Link to post
Share on other sites
adam2323

Daniel thanks for setting the record strait. I’ve always been on the fence with the Freeman footage. I do think because of the PGF we have certain perception what a Sasquatch is “supposed “ to look like. Perhaps that is a misconception on our part? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
23 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

 

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

What does that have to do with anything that Arvedis said?

 

Nothing, but I'd love to touch his rocks.:sarcastic:

 

All BS aside, I really would........

22 hours ago, MIB said:

.......I find the Freeman footage beyond merely interesting.........

 

You and me both. After the PG film, the Freeman film is the best film evidence we have, primarily because it came with footprint casts like the PG film did, and because of the records Freeman kept of his findings in that specific area over the years.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackRockBigfoot
50 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Nothing, but I'd love to touch his rocks.:sarcastic:

 

All BS aside, I really would........

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Arvedis

Whatever details Meldrum missed in his book are forgivable. Once it hits print, he can't take it back and in this case, an incorrect date has no effect on the quality of his work. It's irrelevant. Foliage is irrelevant in this entire analysis. Location is irrelevant in this instance. A forgotten episode of Hard Copy is irrelevant.

 

Personally, I'm totally fine with the Freeman footage.  My only gripe is it was shot with the low quality video of the day so of course, it is what it is. It's just a fleeting glance at the creatures and we can leave it at that because that's all there is. But if you really are that interested, there are other Freeman threads on this board where the numerous Freeman issues are already hashed out.  Imagine that. Every researcher knows by now Freeman was a curious mix of cast hoaxer and genuine article. 

 

The most important aspect to Freeman research that is trending currently is the alleged BF feces sample Freeman kept in his freezer for years. Who knows where it's at now? 

Edited by Arvedis
Link to post
Share on other sites
OldMort

Hey, we are supposed to "just stick to the film." The "experts" tell us this over and over again.

 

If I take their advice I'll take the Freeman footage over the PGF every time...

 

The Freeman footage actually looks like a natural organic being far more than the subject in the PGF.

Edited by OldMort
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
gigantor
On 7/25/2020 at 12:24 AM, MIB said:

Paul seemingly went to his grave not noticing the third bigfoot, the little one

 

Wait, what third bigfoot? Actually what second bigfoot?

 

I'm not saying there isn't, I just never heard of that before and haven't noticed them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

Wait, what third bigfoot? Actually what second bigfoot?

 

I'm not saying there isn't, I just never heard of that before and haven't noticed them.

 

The Freeman footage is of two adult bigfoot. The first is the adult that crosses the trail. He then spots the second adult whilst trying to follow up on that (and even says in the video "There's two of them!"). Freeman then catches a couple of seconds of film of the second adult walking away. 

 

The third is an infant the second adult is apparently carrying. This was not spotted until video was analysised closer, after Freeman had passed away. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...