Gable Film: A Bear Attack Video?
The “Gable film” is an edited 8mm film that has been raising a lot of questions and theories for the last few years. Many have declared this to be an elaborate hoax created by someone wanting to capitalize on the “Michigan Dogman” stories. The film itself is owned by MindStage Productions and can be seen online in a very edited and low quality version. It shows what many have said to be the actual cryptid creature lurking around the Wisconsin and adjacent states. Many researchers have claimed that this is just a hoax created by a radio DJ by the name of Steve Cook. The same person who helped create a fictional story of the “Michigan Dogman” as an April Fool’s joke, stated that he had acquired an old 8mm film with the images of a strange beast that attacks the camera man. He stated that the film was found in an estate sale in the lower peninsula of Michigan.
The 8mm reel did not have any detailed information about who or where the film was shot. The only information known was the inscription “Gable Case #MPO41177-1” that was on the film canister.
All the recent chatter about the “Beast of Bray Road” and “Michigan Dogman” is kicking up dust again since the news report on Fox’s Sean Hannity show last week in which Linda Godfrey was interviewed and the Gable film was shown on national television. I’ve noticed that GhostTheory’s web stats have climbed a lot due to all the Search Engine queries for the elusive creature. Not surprisingly I started to see more comments on my previous posts about the case. One of these comments was made by the reader who goes by “Zach Luebke”. He posted the following:
Zach Luebke says:
I’ve been looking into this ‘Gable Film’ and found something interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFYnkyY5tU
look at that and read the full info in the side bar.
Interesting indeed! The link shows a newly uploaded video by the YouTube user QuinlanOUR12. The information they provided states:
I was at my little brother’s house Friday June 10th and my sister-in-law was watching Fox News. (She’s madly in lust with that Sean Hannity guy). A short segment came on about “the Beast of Bray Road”. Hannity then played a clip from a film named…”The Gable Film”.
Sirens went off in my head.
Our only uncle was a film nut in college, back in the seventies. He was always making home movies and beer commercials. He was even hired, (not for pay), to help the Michigan Department of Natural Resources investigate and document a bear attack, just north of Bellaire. (Our Grandmother worked in the Antrim County Courthouse,…. she had a hand in getting him the gig). The victim’s name was Aaron GABLE.
…..GABLE!!!
My mother tells us that after filming the attack scene, our Uncle John was so distraught that he packed up his stuff and moved to Florida, two weeks later!. Mom says his behavior was becoming very psychotic, he couldn’t sleep at night and he kept going on about how “bears have FIVE toes,….. dogs have four”!. Just a week after he left, a DNR officer hand-delivered the film that Uncle John made to my Mother’s house. It’s been in a box in the basement ever since.
Now, I seem to recall that these films usually lasted about five minutes or so, but the film we have is only about a minute long… and the end of it was obviously torn off, not cut clean. I wonder just how much is missing? We almost threw this film away just a couple of years ago, but I wound up buying a vintage projector on eBay, just to see what was on this film. (Boy, was I suprised). NOW,….. I find that there’s this “Gable” film out there?
I wonder if these two films are related. I’ll see if I can get it in better resolution, other than with Wifey’s camera-phone. (It might be expensive,….. but I’m sure it’ll be worth it).
One thing’s for certain, whatever it was on that clip that they played on Fox News,….. it sure didn’t look like no Bear.
Now, I warn you..The video you are about to see is gruesome if real. It shows the upper-half body of a victim after a bear attack. Interesting to point out, the video has some similarities to the Gable film.
Strong images
Right away you will notice that the film seems to be taken from an older camera. Much like the Gable film, it’s vintage look is what stands out right away from the beginning.
Lets break down the information provided by the uploader.
The YouTube user stated that their uncle was hired by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources to investigate and document a bear attack, and that their grandmother who worked in the Antrim County Courthouse had gotten their uncle the job. According to what was written, The victim’s name of the bear attack was Aaron Gable.
Besides the obvious uncertainties (ie. is the video real, was it a bear attack, is it related to the Gable film) what is unknown is how many victims there were in the attack, where it was shot and where the actual camera man is.
Now, let’s talk about what stood out to me from watching the video.
First, we take a look at the vehicle in both of the films.
In both films, the trucks (which seem to be a 1968 Ford f250 model) seem almost identical.
image: classicautorental.com
I can be mistaken about the model, since my knowledge of automobiles and their make extends to me taking my car to JiffyLube and checking the “SUV/Black” box.
The next similar object of both films is the camera. There is a handheld camera laying on the ground of the bear attack video which has some form of resemblance to the one of the Gable film.
I don’t have a clue as to what type of cameras these could be, but judging from both images, they look similar in regards to size and hand grip. Maybe some of you reading this have a better clue as to what types of cameras these are.
It’s odd how we see the camera on the Gable film when the camera man shoots him/herself through the truck’s side mirror, and then we see a similar camera laying on the ground of the new film.
Coincidence?
The other similarity between the films is the most disturbing one. The person who is chopping wood in the Gable film has an uncanny resemblance to the dead victim in this new film that has surfaced. The hair style and body type seem very similar to each other. Although not a strong poing, the style of clothing seems to be similar as well.
I really hope this new film that has surfaced proves to be a hoax, the unnerving images of a bear attack victim are very graphic.
There is also a different version of the Gable film out there that has been slowed down a bit and cleaned up.
gable film high quality with slow motion
What can we conclude from the images and videos above?
To me, the explanation of the creature on the film being a man in a suit is not plausible for the reason that you can see it take off running on all for legs. The position of the body when charging and the straight, flat back of the creature is something that would be almost impossible for a human to pull off.
Now let us think about the so called “Case number MPO-41177-1″ that the Gable film had on it’s canister. Can the “MPO” stand for some form of case number? Like a civil lawsuit against a state park or a case for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources?
Since it’s surfacing, the Gable film has brought on a lot of speculation of what really is portrayed on the film. A cryptid creature attacking a person or a known animal attack a person. No one can clearly come up with evidence to the contrary, but to me, it looks like a video from a bear attack investigation that was forgotten over the years only to be found and spawn a new urban legend.
Your take on this?
Note: Linda Godfrey will be speaking at Paranormal L.A. 2009 next month alongside Loren Coleman and Barry Conrad. If you are in California, check out the event.
Written by Javier Ortega - javier@ghosttheory.com
Get GhostTheory updates faster! sign up to our RSS Feeds or
add us on Twitter
When i first saw the film i was terrified. I normally look at these kinds of things as hoaxes but this one is not. When you watch the film the creature appears to be ape like with a dog like head. If this were a bear, bears would not have shoulder blades on all fours like a gorilla. The face is not very well seen, but the ears are pointed and tall, like a dogs. This film is real, and if your skeptical check it out for yourself.
I have been following this story with great interest. The owner of the 2nd film states that his uncle was called to document an investigation just north of Bellaire, MI, which is in Atrim Co.
Regarding the cards placed on the ground marked with “G. I. A.” – could this be an abbreviation for “Gable Investigation Antrim” ?
A few things here to point out.
jmilner says that because it’s a resort area, the local authorities might cover or hush it up. Has anyone watched Jaws recently? And although that’s a movie and all that, the same principles apply to these little resort areas in northern Mich/Wisc.
Many of those people make a living off of tourists, winter and summer. News stories and rumors spread about man eating bears and the tourists will go somewhere else. So, unless something becomes an epidemic, the locals are more apt to say it was some kind of farm accident, whatever whatever. A person gets caught in a hay baler and they could easily lose the bottom half of their torso, you know what I’m saying?
Hoaxbuster points to a lack of blood around the body as it being an obvious hoax. Unfortunately, hunters routinely kill and drain the blood from a deer kill, and then drag the body somewhere else, Guess what? There is no blood around the body in that case.
The lower half of the torso being torn off would cause an immediate and total massive blood loss within a few moments, and if the body was then dragged even a few feet away, there would be no blood on the ground around the corpse.
Small town cops were not highly funded back in the 60’s and 70’s, they had limited resources to work with, and they just were not equipped with high tech gadgets.
A magic marker on a sheet of paper was about as high tech as they had, couple that with an 8mm movie camera, and that was as good as it got. The chances are pretty good that the official police photographer–who was generally an amateur type–went and took the obligatory official pictures and then someone else, either a cop or a friend, did the 8mm movie on the side.
That’s my take on it, anyway.
I located the full video online with no compression, and I’ve been watching it on a large screen, rolling back and forth frame-by-frame for the last couple hours.
I feel certain of a couple of things:
Those last frames with teeth and a pair of eyes… are not “action shots.” They are fuzzy, but there’s no motion blur. I think they were inserted later.
As for the “creature,” well nobody but the filmmakers will ever know with certainty… but in full-resolution, uncompressed video, it sure looks a heck of a lot more like a guy in a werewolf costume.
So perhaps it’s either a very well staged “period” hoax, or it’s an old hoax that wasn’t taken seriously at the time, and is only now gaining popularity with a new, wider audience.
It looks like a human in a ape suit until it begins to charge, then it looks like a gorilla or a baboon. I really can’t tell what it is judging from the video. Of course, it could simply be a hoax.
Guys,
Just a thought:
Since the rumor out there is that the original Gable film was labeled as
“Gable Case #MPO41177-1”
I think I found something I think might be relevant.
According to Wikipedia, there was a Michael Patterson that was killed by a bear attack in Michigan in 1978.
Michael Scott Patterson June 19, 1978 Black Porcupine Mountains State Park, Michigan
Wiki link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
Can it be that the MP in case #MPO41177-1 stand for Michael Patterson?
just a thought.
-Javier
Does anyone see ANY defensive wounds on the arm of the “corpse”? If I’m being attacked by an animal (dog/bear/whatever) I’m gonna fight. There would be defensive wounds to the forearms.
I would also imagine that if this were a black bear kill – since black bear boars will stalk,kill,and eat humans – that the viscera would be missing from the torso, not hanging out like a Halloween prop.
It looks like a staged scene to me.
if the “MP” in Gable Case #MPO41177-1 could stand for Michael Patterson then it would not have had written before it ” Gable Case ”
…right¿
Yeah this has hoax written all over it. The “bear” looks totally like a guy in a costume. When it starts moving you can clearly see a massive bend in it’s back legs and again when it turns you can see it again. It also has it’s bum pointing straight in the air whenever it starts to push off with it’s back legs.
Hezter: interesting point that the body may have been moved thus there is less blood. The problem is that the intestines are in a neat pile instead of strung all over the place as they would be if the body was moved.
Also, with regards to the body, what carnivore rips the lower half off a body and completely ignores the intestines which have been neatly spilled out.
Very much a hoax video in my rational opinion.
Out of the many puzzles of the Gable Film, the central is ‘What is the creature?’
It is not one man in a creature suit, for the rapid movement- including all four limbs off the ground at one point- would be impossible for even the fittest human being.
It is not two men in a suit, for it would incredibly difficult to coordinate in stilted movements, let alone the fluidity evident in the film.
It’s not a bull, for their legs lack sufficient bulk.
It could be a bear. However, it is against their normal pattern of behaviour to attack and not bluff. 70% of all bear attacks occur in situations in which the sow and cub feel threatened. Moreover, even a very large bear would struggle to match the sheer physicality of the beast in the Gable Film.
My initial thought was ‘Gorilla’, in particular a large example of a Silverback. Check out examples of these huge creatures on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI7B92_FQiI
The thick front limbs and long body size indicate gorilla. However, what they are doing wild in the States is anybody’s guess.
Another option is a mandrill. It has the arm bulk, the colouring, and the short tail. Moreover, this creature would explain the teeth, too, although this ‘money shot’ is one of the more dubious aspects of the film. Again, what would a mandrill be doing in the States outside of a zoo?
A final option is a cryptid. I wouldn’t rule this out a priori, but all other options should be exhausted first.
Aside from an actual beast, there are other factors to consider.
On lower quality videos it would appear there is some morphing going on. However, on higher quality examples, such as the recent posting of excerpts from 1 and 2 together, it would appear there is no evidence of morphing, or not so obviously the case.
CGI is unlikely given the 1970s date. However, the camera in question is available on Ebay (see an earlier post by somebody else on this forum). Somebody could get hold of this camera and shoot using it in the present day to present a ‘vintage’ feel. All they would require is a 1968 Ford, an old police uniform, and some vintage casual clothes. I’m not sure how they would then apply the CGI. Nonetheless, the CGI is very well done, with little evidence of the ‘blurring’ found even by Hollywood professionals.
A bit of a mystery, isn’t it?
M E Harris
So I’ve been trying to research “#MPO41177-1″ to figure out what “MP” means. I got nothing, then I realized that it says “MPO”!!(lol). I thought that the “o” was a zero..
Well by looking up the “MPO” I found something that it could stand for…MPO VIDEOTRONICS!!
MPO VIDEOTRONICS is a production film company that started in 1947 and then sold the film company 1974,, and just focused on making projectors.. Here’s a link to a brief history on MPO VIDEOTRONICS!! http://www.mpo-video.com/history.htm
Now I don’t know if this is what the “MPO” stood for. All I know is that both subjects the code # on the Gable film and MPO VIDEOTRONICS, both have something in common.. Which is film and film making..
BTW.. That was the most boring research I have ever done..
Time for a nap!!
@Javier Ortega: I looked up the newspaper article on Michael Patterson. He was not torn in half. You can use google’s news archive and search the actual newspaper from the day. It’s like microfilm for the internet age.As an aside to that, It’s quite obvious from the second film segment, that the torso is lying face down. Any defensive wounds/marks would obviously come from the front, so there is no basis for ruling defensive wounds either in or out. This is clear from just a cursory examination of the film footage. Please think before posting here people. Idle speculation doesn’t help one little bit. Also, WADR, to “Dr. Scott” and others, the film footage, in any form, is not clear enough to determine the nature of the animal. IMHO, WAY, WAY, too much is being read into the lateral movements of the animals. Due to various factors, including the lighting, I think the animals head placement, and body width/sholder positioning is being misread. The film is not clear enough, but the turn to the right of the animals head in the very early frames, shows a snout consistant with a bear. While the creature does “bound” (or jump) forward, this quick movement would not be a problem for a bear, especially a juvenile. Back to the torso and the lack of blood. There isn’t a lack of blood. The body is in a field with hay, and you can quite clearly see how the hay has soaked up a lot of the blood into the ground. This makes the torso MORE likely to be real, not less.The solution to the source is to go to the source. Whoever posted to Youtube the second video has the answers.
The MPO lead appears weak at best. Good research, BUT it has no relation to making movies. It was/is more of a video editing/production company, and equipment seller. It is also
not finalized that the “O” is not a “0″(zero). Like I said, good work regardless. I looked up the “case number” on the film and all civil cases with the name “Gable” in the county courthouse files online for the county mentioned in the description of the source.
The results ? NOTHING. No civil cases, nothing. The case number and the story make me think the film is real, but is being misrepresented. The other possiblity that I didn’t consider is the vintage camera theory. That is, a vintage camera was used to produce a very well done hoax. Highly unlikely,IMHO, but not impossible.
Mr.
Well I didn’t say the that “MPO” made movies, but I also didn’t mention that they sold equipment either..
My bad for not elaborating more..That’s why I posted that link..
Trust me I looked up everything too. By the time i got to “MPO VIDEOTRONICS”. I was like snore.
I even tried Military Post Office (which has the real Acronym “MPO”)
I was thinking that maybe the #41177 was maybe a zip code..and the government/military was tryin to send the film to Area 51 or something…lol Idk..I didn’t find anything though..of course
Thanks for the compliments by the way
Oh and here’s the website to those Acronyms if anyone wants to check them out.. http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Measurable+Performance+Object ..
They are all “MPO”
for the sake of debate, let me present a ‘what if’ scenario…
what if –
) the creature in the first gable film is not a dog, bear, or ape, but is some form of unknown predator?
) these people, let’s call them “the gables,” had spotted this thing before, and were determined to capture it on film?
) they heard or saw something that caused them to get into the truck with the camera and find the creature?
) they located it, it ran. they left the truck and tracked it into the woods, cornered it, and one or more of them was attacked, leaving their camera as the only witness?
) the police happened along and found the abandoned truck, then found the torso?
) perhaps fearing whatever had done this might come back and cart off the rest of the body, they call in a local civilian with a film camera to document the discovery?
) mr. gable was somewhat of a loner, a drifter, or new to the area, had no next of kin, and no one knows him?
) since dna did not exist then, and unless mr. gable had committed a felony, there would be no record of his fingerprints, therefore no way to positively identify him?
) being a rural area, with no local newspaper or television station, the story goes unpublished?
) the police run a routine check on missing persons files, with no results. the case goes cold?
) the authorities don’t suspect foul play. to protect the local economy, so dependent on hunters and tourism, the thing is written off as an accidental death, natural causes, or suicide. the official position becomes that the body consumption was been done by scavengers?
) because no crime has been committed, the police never contact the civilian who filmed the scene. or if they try, he has already fled to florida. however, they do have the original film, and they send it off to an expert to determine what kind of animal it is?
) the expert’s opinion is inconclusive. he never bothers to return the film and no one asks. he tosses it into a closet and forgets it, dies 25 years later, and the film ends up in a box of junk at his estate sale?
remember, this is all very new and dramatic to us. cops have to deal with stuff like this every day as a matter of routine.
okay, start whacking away at my theory!!
The fact that(so far) the person who posted the second video to Youtube hasn’t responded is highly suspicious. Perhaps a hoax has occured here after all..time will tell.
MR,
I agree.
No responses to me nor other readers who have tried to contact the uploader.
like you said, time will tell…..
-Javier
RE: jmilner theory
Interesting theory, the only problem is that it’s constructed entirely of speculation and inference.
You’ve basically saying..
What IF A is true (with no evidence to support A)
THEREFORE if A is true then B (with no evidence to support B)
THEREFORE if B is true then C (with no evidence to support C)
THEREFORE if C is true then D (with no evidence to support D)
THEREFORE if D is true then E (with no evidence to support E)
THEREFORE if E is true then F (with no evidence to support F)
THEREFORE if F is true then G (with no evidence to support G)
THEREFORE if G is true then H (with no evidence to support H)
THEREFORE if H is true then I (with no evidence to support I)
So by the time you get to your final conclusion you’ve basically written a nice story which sounds plausible but has no evidence in any way shape or form to support it.
Example:
My housemate john left for work today. What if, after I saw him leave, then he saw a friend driving past & they talked. His friend asked him to go to the beach and John decided to have the day off work & go to the beach. When they got to the beach they went swimming. While they were swimming John got a cramp. His friend lost sight of him and searching and searching for him couldn’t find him.
OH MY GOD! my housemate has drowned!! I better call the police & tell them what happened!!!
See the problem?
I just happened upon this video over the last day but it hasn’t taken me long to make my own conclusion. It’s all fun but it’s also amazing how tenaciously people grip their theories – which, I remind everyone, are based upon fuzzy, low rez online video. It is known that the original film is in the hands of the “Radio Dude” who introduced this to the web – why no high rez video direct from the film? – Likely because it would be immediately clear that there’s nothing at all to it. Anyway, for what it’s worth, here are my observations of the highest resolution vid I could find online (film #1 starting just before the “video scramble”):
… the trees in foreground appear to be a sapling (much thinner than the mature trees in preceding portions) as do the ones near the animal (suggest the animal is not very large); the animal is looking down (not toward the camera), batting at something on the ground (perhaps the “kid” tossed a rock near it?); the animal gives a quick head shake (much like a cat or dog would); the animal moves forward (possibly because the rock is tied to a string?)… (from there, my bet is that the kid starts running, pulling the string behind him and the cat/dog (whether just hairy or in costume) begins to chase him… camera drops… (stuff added on electronically – video scramble on super 8?)
There were alot of gore movies in the ’70s (ie: TX Chainsaw). The first video, in my opinion is an authentic, innocent, homemade “movie” (minus the video scramble).
Film #2: Speculate all you want with this one. Whether this one is shown as high res or low res – this is physically a separate film with no way of being connected with the first film. Only the “coincidence” that the two films are introduced online in such low resolution.
It is my personal conclusion that the first film was a “authentic” old home movie where a boy is playing with his camera; happens to have a clip where a cat/dog chases a string or similar; boy runs, drops the camera… (then edited) that, fastforward to the present, inspired someone to create a second “film” that would augment the “implied” tale that there was a killing caught on film by some unknown creature back a few decades. Critique?
matt- agreed! my personal jury is still out on this film.
i wasn’t putting out a theory, just trying to find a path that makes this plausible. it’s no more or less objective than the knee-jerk reaction of automatically dismissing something because it doesn’t fit one’s preconceived notion of reality.
Re: jmilner
Agreed.. i’m absolutely not dismissing it out of hand. It’s always good to think of a skeptics denial of ghosts/goblins/psychics to be an expanded version of “for X to be true I require evidence, logical consistency, verifiability and the more outlandish the claim the more of each are required”
At the moment the first video is sketchy at best and extremely suspect at worst. There are too many factors which are odd. The gait of the animal, the cinematographic movement of the camera even as the person is apparently running for their life and finally the neat and incredibly cliche jaws opening up to bite the viewer. Remember the teeth at the end are not biting a face or anything, in fictional movies this shot is used to make the viewer feel like they are themselves being directly attacked. In reality the “monster” is doing nothing but biting the camera itself.
The second video is waaaaay too neat. The lack of splashed blood, the neat pile of guts which indicate the body could NOT have been moved, the (from memory since i can’t watch it at work) no defensive marks on the persons arms. The “corpses” skin tone is still a nice pink color rather than pallid from blood loss. The fact that there are ZERO visible bones even though the body has been apparently opened significantly. Very very sus
It’s just too many parts of the film don’t add up at all.
I HOPE this is a hoax. Pause it when you can see the damn things teeth. They’re ALL HUGE! To my knowledge, bears are omnivores, so they have (and excuse my lack of scientific terminology) sharp teeth, AND flat teeth. The thing in the video has a mouthful of very large fangs. Not to mention its eyes are crazy. They look blue to me. Something about the tongue throws me off too. But then again, I’m no zoologist.
Jonman701 from you tube.
I have studied the first film and closely looked at the “creature” now i have seen bears in videos from every length, you can make a bear out there fur isn’t mangy at all its very neat, they make choices like, yes time to charge or im not gonna and sorta act like im gonna run away MAYBE, it just doesn’t act or even look close to a bear plus this “creatures” arms and legs are way to long and bears charge forward not carefully pick its path in order to go off like an arrow, plus it just looks nothing like a bear over all like the shoulders and the head as well as its movements, bears are easy to make out at this distance.
Its not an gorilla or an ape, its just not.
now when you first see something you haven’t really seen before the first thing your mind will do is try and place it with other things in a similar category, in this case, 4 legs or appendages, hairy and ears or maybe man i suit expecting a hoax.
this isn’t a man in a suit, a man in a suit like that could not cross that distance in 10 seconds just the second it moves covering that kinda distance so gracefully, plus if you look close enough when it starts to move, you see dog or wolf like legs that push it forward FAST! you see its butt push up (in a way a human cannot bend like that) if this is a hoax, for when this was filmed, its better then any movie maker i have ever seen!
oh by the way any creature people have mentioned that they think it is, first off the ears eliminate them quickly and a human just doesn’t look right to me at all either!
from the 100’s upon (yes hundreds) hundreds of sightings (even the sightings from people i know) it matches, it looks just the same, it moves the same, ears and all and remember this was recorded BEFORE anyone knew about the “beast of bray road” and then surfaced not long ago,
All i can say is just study it, full screen, just don’t be bias, just look at it for what it is, heck first time i saw it, i thought it couldn’t be real either!
Ty for reading, have a great day!
Oh and lastly i wanna state that i think the second Gable film might be a hoax for a number of reasons, for a murder or animal attack, there sure wasn’t many people around, and there were no real bones or other kind of lower parts left, normally with a bear attack the legs are still attached and if this was a “werewolf” i don’t see why it would do any less, but i find it strange that the upper part of the shit was unharmed and there was no blood as far as i could see on it, normally when someone runs away there back is too the animal and when it attacks the back gets at least clawed, but nothing, even the arms would be used to protect the upper body, but nothing seems to be harmed on the upper body, that i find strange becaue the upper body would be easier to eat then from what i thought i saw, jeans, and for the organs spilling out, well normally animals that eat people eat the guts almost first, not eat the legs and the bones, seems like a hoax, they hardly showed the victim much at all, next to no blood on the victim too, sorry but the second one i doubt, first one i think is real, but you never know!
MrScience: You make the most sense here. Everyone else seems to be pulling out microscopes to examine fuzz. All pointless when a high resolution video would either confirm or denie what’s on the film quickly.
If I wanted to tell the world that I had film evidence of a mythical creature attacking someone (back in the ’70s or whenever the heck), I would definitely send them HIGH RESOLUTION imagery. According to what I read, supposedly the “owner” of the film held back but decided to show a supposed select few a video to get their input, which was ultimately leaked to the web. “Uh, yeah guys… here’s a really fuzzy version of some evidence, let me know what you think.” Not likely unless ambiguity was the whole point – to “suggest” without actually admitting that he wants people to think there’s some monster caught on film. My bet is he’ll say something like “Oh, uh, yeah… the Government stole the original… I guess we’ll never REALLY know. Btw: buy my book.” Scam.
One point. I’ve noticed one or two commentators on various sites noticing the prima facie discrepancy between the poster of GF2 saying ‘the victim is Aaron Gable’ and the victim in the film being a woman. These same commentators also say the victim is ‘apparently’ a woman. It’s not altogether obvious it was. Keep in mind that this was/is meant to have been the 1970s. In those days long hair was the fashion for men. The person looks thick-set and is carrying out ‘manly’ tasks (I’m not sexist, but I’m trying to provide an alternative POV). My first reaction when I saw GF1 (full version) was that it was a man. I didn’t start considering the possibility of a woman until people started mentioning it in conjunction with GF2. In GF1 there is a brief section in which the person is facing the camera straight on when fixing the truck, but this is so brief and indistinct that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to say one way or another.
I just watched a slowed down vid of film #1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRSk80muD8
When it’s slowed down you can better note the size of the head, the ears, the tail, and generally cat-like movements. A fat furry kitty folks.
3:12 on GF1. Light area is indicative of a nose. Dark patches above the light area could well be eyes. Looks like a bear’s face. Only for 3:12, and visible only in HD/enhanced versions.
“When it’s slowed down you can better note the size of the head, the ears, the tail, and generally cat-like movements. A fat furry kitty folks.”
OMG, dude. That isn’t a kitty-cat! Look at the size relation to the undergrowth and the trees. No way. No way in hell.
Its a fake.
I have posted a response on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrZuF4gKT4
David Rawlings video makes a good point!!
I have always wondered what that wire looking stuff was on the inside of this things mouth,, I just assumed that this creature had a different mouth structure then most animals..Idk ,it just struck me as odd..
Then when Davids video shows the first frame of the teeth, you can clearly see the wire looking thing is on the outside of the creatures mouth..??.. Hence looking like it’s a close up of a dog sticking his face out of a fence..
Something else I’m not sure about though.. Is that what dog teeth looks like? It almost looks like this thing has double canines,,and that’s rare for a dog to have..
Anna: I think your’e making an assumption about the size of the trees and undergrowth. Watch one of the full videos again (one of the better resolution ones); notice the size of the trees before that scene; then notice the scene with the animal in frame – the small tree that slightly overlays the animal in the shot is a sapling with thin trunk; branches. The trees around the animal are the same.
Until you’ve actually witnessed how big and fat cats can get, you won’t appreciate their sheer thickness, bulk. I’ve seen house cats that scare dogs. (I initially figured it might be a Bobcat or Lynx but they have short tails.)
I’ve seen this supposed elusive creature film footage over and over again Javier and am convinced its a person in a suit,mixed with CGI especially when its running.
Watch it over again and pay close attention to the back end of this supposed creature, its indeed a man in heavily padded suit, look at the back legs, they are partially hidden on the weeds,can be easily hidden amonst the thick dead leaves, to give an appearance of a four legged beast. This man was wearing good padding on his knees, he can easily ran on the front legs if he balled up his fists with good padding while running.
South Dakota Guy is spot on. Have a close look at the high quality version above. If you click on play twice, rapidly, you can view it almost “frame by frame”. There is a halo around the creature that is inconsistant with the ambient light, which you can see is brightest on viewers’s right. It is lit on both sides?? When it puts its front right “leg” – to the viewer’s left – forward and leaves a gap the gap is brightly lit, no hint of a shadow.
Hey guys,
Don’t forget, Linda Godfrey will be on “Coast To Coast AM” in about 1.5 hours.
Call up and asks your questions
-Javier
After watching the film a couple of time, i got the feeling that its not an animal attack but instead a friendly pet who’s chasing something for the fun of it. The teeth part at the end look fake and even if it’s not, that does’nt mean its an agressive bite (im sure a lot of dog owner knows what i mean).
So after reading MrScience, i can only agree with his conclusion.
One further point, when the “creature” goes behind an item in the foreground, grass or a sapling for instance, the part of that item which is between the viewer and the “creature” suddenly brightens. Why? Because it is a fake, CGI replacement of the original. This “film” should be abandoned now.
Could MPO41177-1 stand for “Michigan Police” and then a case number?
That seems like a likely possibility to me.
My guess on the code on the film canister would be that MP could be Michigan Police, or some other police dept starting with an M.
If that were so the numbers could be a date.
04 11 77 = 11th April, 1977? with the -1 being the first suspicious death investigated that year, which if it were a small police department involved could be the case.
Would a date in early April suit the apparent conditions of vegetation and climate seen in the film?
Perhaps someone in Michigan can find some reference to a grisly animal attack/accidental death/murder around that time in a local newspaper, which might validate this film as real.
Interesting films but I’m sitting on the fence in regard to their authenticity.
I think its a dog in a bear suit or a bear in a dog suit. No kidding I could not sleep all night after watching this. keep seeing the damm thing everytime I closed my eyes.
How about a werewolf in a cat suit. Scary, I wonder what a AR-15 ultra shock round would do to the guy, I mean creature.
It does fit the basic description of fast moving, hairy canine type and very aggressive. Heard coast to coast show last night added to the frenzy. scary stuff, keep digging guys we will find the truth !!!
I apologize if I don’t understand all the details of this tale, but I’m wondering about one thing: if the body in the second film is supposed to be the man we see chopping wood, etc. in the first, then what happened to the kid who is actually doing the filming in the truck?? His reflection is clearly seen in the side view mirror of the truck on the passenger side.
This means there was a witness? Or did he “die” too?
By the way, I don’t buy any of this, but it is too amusing to read folks post their amateur musings about cat anatomy, bear behavior, what bodies look like after evisceration, etc. Wonderful stuff …
Okay, I’m giving in and offering a few speculations too …
1. This was apparently being treated as a bear attack by the guy in the rented vintage cop outfit … I mean, by the cop. If that’s true, then it gives motivated sleuths something to go by, because “death by bear” if very rare. One could track it down fairly quickly. Here’s an incomplete list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade
They certainly wouldn’t have classified this as a hunting accident, unless they were using hand grenades (of course, these are the same woods that produced Ted Nugent, right?).
2. Is everyone comfortable with the fact that the truck has hubcaps on the left but not on the right?
3. For the most part if you have a body you have a death certificate. Why not check the public records to see if an “Aaron Gable” existed or passed on in the years in question?
In all seriousness, the first film is a wonderfully done creation (inexplicably, after all their work, they put that horrid mouth image on the end and blew it for me). This second film is a great follow up — I doubt they even knew the original filmakers, meaning they had to locate a ‘68 Ford, the particular 8mm camera, etc. In the end, it was all pretty entertaining.
I’m not quite sure what to make of the department video of the supposed aftermath, but the Gable film itself is very interesting.
Here we have a creature of some sort on all fours, then suddenly giving chase to the camera operator in-from what I observe-a very efficient succession of movement and acceleration.
The creature did not stumble or even wobble from its course of action. Now this tells me whatever it is, it’s NOT a man in a bear/werewolf/monkey suit. The back of this creature was straight the whole time, very contrary to when you see a human trying to ‘run’ on all fours as eventually the tailbone will constantly rise up and down and also the knees will be highly visible from the front. This would be extremely difficult if not ultimatley impossible for a person perform such physicial activity draped in a costume.
I also agree with the aforementioned comments regarding the fact that the creature has what looks like a broad set of shoulders. Any zoologist and hunter can tell you that bears do not have laterally projecting vertebrates that would resemble such, and either way this would still be worthy of an official investigation.
My final take on this subject is that this is some kind of creature outside the realm of normal wildlife in that area. It could be a mutated wolverine or badger (maybe even a bear), a actual werewolf, or an undiscovered species of mammal. However, this could simply be a superbly well-orchestrated hoax; if that is the case, Hollywood should give these people a job.
THX
D.W
Regarding the sex of the alleged victim….in the still from the woodchopping scene, it looks to me as if a portion of a beard can be seen…this person never registered as a female to me. I have seen many larger men with similar body proportions, even the larger hips and *booty* area. The forearms look masculine, but obese.
Lori,
I completely agree!! I don’t get where they see a female, my guess is that when he is swinging the axe he kinda looks feminine..?..
I think I see a beard too. Its kinda hard to catch..So good find!!
Also when the person is working on the truck it looks like he’s wearing an open or very low cut vest with no under shirt..?..
It’s definitely a male!!
To Lori- The person chopping wood is in fact a male. When you see him under the hood of the truck, he has his shirt undone exposing his chest. A lot of people tho have overlooked that but I cleared that up a long time ago, I know maybe there are new people joining whom probably haven’t a clue tho.
Been doing alot of research on this one –
snow mobiles:
1 – john deer 400 – green (1972)
1 – Skidoo – yellow (1965-1966)
pickup truck – ford f100 (1969)
Police car – Dodge Manaco (1974)
camera – bell and howell 8mm autoload “animation” camera still hunting down the year.
One card by the camera reads “gla” Perhaps “Glasses” there looks like a pair of black rimmed glasses to the left of the card.
this at first looked like a bear but then after looking at it turn and its ears it is not a animal that i have seen. it is very creepy and the worst is that i live in michigan
Dan Marro & Ian,
What do you guys make of this:
http://www.ghosttheory.com/crypto/gable-film-anomalous-entity/
-Javier