"The Paul Freeman Bigfoot film" - Need Debunking

[REEN-JA]

Hello Everyone,
this is my first time on Metabunk.com so be nice please.

To my knowledge in the Bigfoot community, one of many sources of contention in their circle is the so-called Paul Freeman Film.



Basically, it was a film recorded by Bigfoot-researcher Michael Paul Freeman in 1994, somewhere in the vicinity of the Blue Mountains in Northeast Oregon. Although some people in the Bigfoot community consider Mr. Freeman to be a fraudster, others have argued for the authenticity of the film, including popular paranormal YouTuber Bob Gymlin (not to be confused with Bob Gimlin), who seems to be fairly well respected in the Bigfoot community (though I find some of his arguments flawed, his conspiratorial attitude annoying , and his foray into ufology and deep-end paranormal activity disappointing). He provides some more info on the film overall and Freeman overall, with some random musings.



There's also some other analysis videos from other accounts




Basically, the main arguments seem to be "it's too big/sasquatchy-looking to be a human", "its footprints are hyper-detailed" and "it moves too gracefully to be a human". I dont think any serious skeptical analysis has been done of the film yet so yeah. Are these folks arguments valid? I find certain parts of the story suspicious, though the footprints having hyper-precise detail is hard to argue with (especially those toe-prints, though those could have just been human toeprints)

 

[REEN-JA]

In my humble opinion, it reminds me of the Sasquatch costume in "Boggy Creek II: The Legend Continues"

 

[FatPhil]

Basically, the main arguments seem to be "it's too big/sasquatchy-looking to be a human", "its footprints are hyper-detailed" and "it moves too gracefully to be a human".

"too big" is an argument that can be decided upon by giving two numbers - the height of the creature, and the largest likely height of a human. Neither number has been provided, though the latter can be negotiated easily (offer me 210cm, and I'd be prepared to conditionally go along with that), and therefore that's not really an argument, it's a feeling.
"too sasquatchy" is entirely non-decidable, as we don't know what a sasquatch looks like, and costumes can be made to be arbitrarily sasquatchy, as measured by feelings.
"hyper-detailed footprints" is an argument that doesn't even decide sasquatchiness. Too detailed might even be an indicator of fraud.
"moves too gracefully" is again non-decidable, as we don't know how graceful a sasquatch is (most other primates, apart from tree-bound ones in their element, I consider quite ungraceful, why would sasquatch be different?), and humans can parambulate arbitrarily gracefully.

So at the moment there isn't really a case to answer.

The other analyses are even contradictory of each other, in particular when it comes to the head position. I see someone tipping his head to look down, but commentator 1's comments were more along the lines of it being not human-like as it was a bend at the hip not at the neck, and commentator 3's take was that it's not human-like as a human would have a more upright head position (5m37s: "look how far forward ... the head is, leaning forward, ... whereas a human would be way more upright" - no, my head would be leaning forward exactly how this thing's). Apparently whichever of the contradictory ways you perceive it, none are humanlike despite it all looking mostly humanlike to me. Apologies for not having exact quote for commentator 1, but I wasn't going to rewatch the vid to find a quotes that I didn't know would be relevant when I first watched it. (Disagreeing with a stated opinion was a mundane enough occurance that that particular one wasn't an instance of note.) I presume you're more familiar with his commentary than I, so should have an easier job of finding it, and if a transcript is available (even an AI one), it should be quicker to search for waist/neck-related references.

Anyway, my prior of "bloke in an apesuit" isn't being shifted from top position by that video, as a bloke in an apesuit could easily look like that.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Basically, the main arguments seem to be "it's too big/sasquatchy-looking to be a human", "its footprints are hyper-detailed" and "it moves too gracefully to be a human". I dont think any serious skeptical analysis has been done of the film yet so yeah. Are these folks arguments valid? I find certain parts of the story suspicious, though the footprints having hyper-precise detail is hard to argue with (especially those toe-prints, though those could have just been human toeprints)

I guess I missed this thread, I'll have to look at the videos. But just to start what exactly does "...too big/sasquatchy-looking to be a human" mean? There are some very large people out there. Too big compared to what, is there a human in the video? Given that hoaxed footprints have been a standard in the Bigfoot world forever, I'm surprised it's taken this long for someone to attempt a more detailed footprint. But exactly what sub-strata were these "hyper detailed" prints taken from? Is it consistent with the creation of a "hyper-details"? And "...moves to gracefully..." is just nonsensical. Human can move very gracefully and as there are no other known bipedal hominids, there is nothing to compare it too.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Anyway, my prior of "bloke in an apesuit" isn't being shifted from top position by that video, as a bloke in an apesuit could easily look like that.

Agreed. Just watch the original video and it seems awfully staged. He's walking along a very well worn trail and "there he goes!" The Squatch actually appears to look down like trying to find his mark for where to walk and stop, or maybe just trying to see where he's going in the costume.

 

[NorCal Dave]

including popular paranormal YouTuber Bob Gymlin (not to be confused with Bob Gimlin), who seems to be fairly well respected in the Bigfoot community (though I find some of his arguments flawed, his conspiratorial attitude annoying , and his foray into ufology and deep-end paranormal activity disappointing

But that's the modern state of Bigfootery. Giving stories that go back 75 years or more and yet no physical evidence has ever been presented, Bigfoot was forced into the realm of the paranormal. Inter-dimensional Bigfoot, or spirit Bigfoot, or alien Bigfoot or any other version that excuses the complete lack of physical evidence is needed to explain that lack of evidence.

 

[Ann K]

but commentator 1's comments were more along the lines of it being not human-like as it was a bend at the hip not at the neck,

...which is exactly what a human in an ape suit would do if the costume were not well articulated at the neck joint.

I'll point out that if a large and scary primate is anywhere near me in the woods, I'm unlikely to call out "Oh, there he goes!" and attract its attention.