So much has been said and speculated over the original Gable film and the new up film that has surfaced in the last few days. Theories abound from this entire thing being a hoax, to a bear or wolf attack that was caught on video to the so-called Michigan Dogman.
I’ve been hastily going through the comments here on GhostTheory and other blogs about these two films. I’ve been contacted by various people who all seem to add a small, yet significant piece to this puzzle.  Is this whole thing a hoax? or is this all an urban legend that sprung to life when someone found an old police/ranger evidence film from an animal attack victim? I believe that at this point, we do not have enough evidence to clearly state what this film is or isn’t.  I think it would be best to investigate these films with an open mind first, before we declare it a hoax of proof of a cryptid creature.  I’ve sent the original posting about the Gable film to Linda Godfrey, who is the Author of “Beast of Bray Road” and “Hunting the American Werewolf” for her comments on the films.

Here is what Linda had to say:

…I found the new video extremely disturbing and thought that it did resemble the woman chopping wood.

If this second film is not hoaxed, it does seem there is an amazing correlation. It should be possible for someone to check police reports about bear attacks with the general time frame known. I still question whether it was a bear; that is simply presumed by the authorities. It also does not look like a typical bear attack victim from what I’ve read. Especially black bears. To just take the lower half of the body strikes me as very odd.

I do want to say that I’ve known Steve Cook for years and he would never perpetrate a hoax like this. It is possible that someone else hoaxed the films and used him as a conduit but it would certainly not be his fault. He has always been very up front about which parts of The Legend were made up, and has given all profits to an animal shelter. Likewise, the Gable film is now open to the public on a creative common license to study and examine…

I must agree with Linda in regards to the way the body of the victim appears.  From what I’ve seen, bear attacks do no usually end up this way. A whole lower-half of the body was missing.  I know bears could eat a whole human being, I’ve seen reports on that, but that was in an area where the climate was especially harsh that year and most of the bear population was suffering from starvation.

As far as Steve Cooks involvement in creating a hoax…well, I personally do not think he is behind any hoax (besides the “Legend” prank he admitted from day one).  If these films turn out to be a hoax, then my guess is that Mr. Cook is a victim as well, just like the rest of us.

A comment left last night from William R. Hancock, who is a member of Linda’s Yahoo discussion group adds more to the mystery:

I am a member of Linda Godfrey’s Yahoo Discussion Group, the Unknown
Creature Sptt, and we were the group Steve Cook originally brought
the Gable footage to for argument and analysis, while he also went with some wildlife experts and photoanalysts. Project was suppoised to be “under wraps” but it got loose fast as we seemingly had a troll in our midst who bumped it to YouTube and the rest, as they say, is history.

The general consus we made was this:

It is abslutely NOT a person in a suit. Our human body sructure
doesn’t tally with with the biomechanics necessary to bound around like this whatsit does. Our legs are too long, which would make our
butts stick up in the air, and that is not the case here. I about
killed myself out in a yard while all dressed up in a padded approximation of this thing. It was tough making a single credible
bound—making a SERIES of them wasout of the question.My efforts
were just laughable. No,anybody who tries to tell you that is
a person in a suit is “full of it”.

It is not a stop-motion animation puppet. There is no matting
of images to be found and no “strobe” effect seen, as is common when an object is photographed deaqd still and moved frame by frame
between shots. No evidence if artificial “motion blur” via CGI
imaging, either.

Not any kind of rod puppet. No green screen or blue screen work
in evidence.

Not CGI in any way, shape, or form as the film strip dates from
the 1970s (so says a Kodak analyst) and it in poor shape. Computer graphic imagery did not exist at the time this footage was shot
and no CGI type pixellation is to be found in inhancements of the footage.

So what is it?

The easier question is, what is it NOT? And wildlife folks, camera folks, and even M.K. Davis of Patterson-Gimlin stabilization fame
(who was “disturbed” by Gable)can tell you the “no’s”.

It is not a chow dog and it is not a bear. The dead giveaway here is the morphology. Dogs and bears are quadrupeds and their skeletal structure is designed as such. An upright dog, like an upright bear, does NOT possess shoulders that run on a horizontal axis. Only primates do. The Gable beast has shoulders like a Green Bay
Packers linebacker and that only shows the chow and the bear “the door” on morphology.

The second thumbs down on the bear—-as well as the thumbs down on the Gorilla (or baboon)—-regards animal behavior. Most higher
animals have evolved elaborate defense behaviiors to avert threats
and to prevent out-of-control confrontations. You see BLUFFING
behaviors in primates and in bears. They will do all manner if mock charges, followed by brief retreats, and will do this any number oif times to warn off–and scare off—an interloper. All this bluffing is meant to intimidate and send the interloper “packing”,
and, with primates is welldocumented by Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall. It is also documented in bears and elephants (see the
mama elephant at the waterhole sequence in John Wayne’s “Hatari”
for a classic example of such a threat warning)., About the only
time a bear will charge WITHOUT going through a threat ritual is if
some idiot is messing with cubs and mama bear sees it. Then you can WATCH OUT! We should note that there are NO cubs of ANY kind seen in the Gable film and therefore a straight up bear attack without threat bluff is HIGHLY unlikely.

The Gable whatsit does NO bluffing and no warning off of ANY kind.
It simply sees the camera operator, sights him (or her) in, and CHARGES. No hesitation whatsoever. VERY atypical behavior. Whatever it is, this thing is mean. It is protecting no young and is in no danger itself. Still it goes for the human.

One f the things that made M.K.Davis antsy is that this thing, just before it charges, seems to kind of do a sort of waver across the
front torso and seems to EXPAND itself. This is a bit bizarre and DOES tie in—maybe—-with traditional Native American stories
about dogmen as spirit beings. And maybe not.

So what do have on Gable 1? Just what it isn’t, is my conclusion.

On Gable 2? Too soon to tell. Too much investigatory research needs
doing. The two things MIGHT be related. Time will tell. But I will tell you this, for MY money’s worth, the bear story is just that—a bear STORY. It is a convenient way to explain away the INconvenient for the DNR. Like swamp gas and the planet venus with UFO accounts and the Air Force.

Thank you for your time and attention.

WRH

Granted, I also do not think it is a human in a costume what we are seeing in the Gable film, but I’m not to sure about the dog theory.  The movements of the creature are really natural and fluid, just like a quadruped’s would be. So why isn’t it possible that someone just dressed up the family dog in a costume to achieve this natural motion?

As far as both films being related?

Reader Dr. Scott fills us in on his findings:

The camera reflected in the window in the original Gable film I have positively identified as a Bell & Howell Zoom Reflex 8mm Electric Eye Autoload Cartridge Camera.

The front of this camera can be seen in detail in photos found here:
http://www.buywithcertainty.com/images/aw2k/images5.html

The camera in these pictures does not have the optional Pistol Grip attached, but the same camera in these pictures does:

http://www.donaldlester.com/images/TLD1499-1.jpg

https://www.auctions8.com/uplimg/img_570406_0c7a861e0216ea6fb86d3adddadc4ff2.jpg

So, upon close comparison, the camera seen on the ground in the “Part II?” film is clearly the exact same make and model of camera, with optional pistol grip, as seen in the reflection in the first film.

These were wind-up cameras with a maximum running time of approximately 2 minutes per wind-up. The film cartridges have not been made for many years. The cameras and accessories can still be found on eBay. They were manufactured in the mid 1960’s.

I hope this helps investigators looking into the connection between the two films.

I think these correlations that are surfacing are extremely important in order to get to the bottom of this. Besides the imagery that we’ve been comparing and investigating, what about the original post that was done on YouTube? Who was the author of the video? and what else does the film show?

A long time reader of GhostTheory, who goes by BC had this to say:

… The geography seems to match up. I’m fairly confident the two films are a match. One of the things that bothers me about the second film though is the back story- it feels VERY fake to me. The person obviously wants people to think the uncle was shook up by what he witnessed, lost his mind, and had to move out of state. Also, notice how he says it was shot for the DNR but he makes a point of saying his uncle did not get paid (so there is no record of course). The implication is that he knew it wasn’t a bear that had attacked “Aaron Gable”. That’s the whole point of his uncle supposedly saying, “bears have FIVE toes,….. dogs have four”!, ie, the tracks they found must have had just four toes. Doesn’t his uncle supposedly saying that feel cheesy to you? I’m starting to think this is all part of something like a college film shot back in the 70s and the guy might have saw Hannity play the footage we’re all aware of, did not realize this part of a film he shot as a kid had become an internet sensation, and remembered he had more footage up in the attic. Then again, maybe he’s just a patient hoaxer…

I think at this point, our best option would be to try to get in contact with the owner of the second video and try to get them to submit a full length film for better investigations.

Thank you all for your investigative work on this, let us keep rolling and exposing the truth…