Comments on: Full Gable Film

By: Angrylandlord

Angrylandlord — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 23:21:30 +0000

It obviously isn’t a human but it looks like a gorilla for the first few steps till it starts to run forward and it starts too look more like a wolf.

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 11:48:38 +0000

For those that missed the show or the news, the Gable footage is a full-blown, created, therefore, hoaxed film.

If you would like your comment removed from this section in which you rationalized and justified why the film is “real,” please direct your request to editor@cryptomundo.com ~ which is the admin end of things for the new ownership – not to me personally.

Thank you.

By: skunkmonkey2002

skunkmonkey2002 — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:14:50 +0000

It looks like a brown bear with light reflecting off its back. And just because I think it’s a “real” bear doesn’t mean I believe this isn’t a hoax. The attack at the end where we see the teeth clamping down in front of the camera could easily have been added later, as well as the various scratches and even the hair in the early part of the film. I don’t buy it. The whole thing, especially the DJ who claims to have “discovered” this footage from a yard sale just has HOAX written all over it.

By: jan09

jan09 — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 06:41:22 +0000

The folks who put out things like this tend to overthink or overdo things just enough as to remove all doubt as to what is going on. In this case, the lingering shot of the camera operator in the side mirror, to “prove” a vintage camera is being used, and the almost subliminal shot of the teeth at the end are melodramatic flourishes that snapped me right out of any willingness to go along for the ride, long before the MQ revelation.

Tip for future hoaxers: less is more

By: MrInspector

MrInspector — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:17:36 +0000

Chow, Bear, Porcupine, Werewolf, Bigfoot, etc… It just goes to show what sensible people will “read into” something. Ghillie suit! I admit that I was scratching my head watching this piece of footage when I first saw it. I watched it over and over and never really formed an opinion on “the creature” in question. Reel two made it obvious to me that it was a hoax, but I was still trying to figure out just what this “creature” was. The first reel was a good hoax, I have to chuckle.

By: jerrywayne

jerrywayne — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:02:16 +0000

The MQ dealing with American werewolves and the “Gable” film is instructive. It revealed the Gable film to be a hoax, just as many here suspected. What else can we take away from the program?

Interestingly, although the show strove to give credence to the idea of werewolves (in typical MQ fashion—-damn the implausibilities, full speed ahead with eyewitnesses), one could take a larger view and see this as a culturally driven phenomena. MQ even suggested (but only suggested) this by noting the immigration of belief (superstition?) in werewolves from the Old Country to the New World. However, the program didn’t look at much more recent influences.

The eyewitness accounts of werewolves presented on MQ have a striking resemblance to Hollywood depictions, especially found in THE HOWLING franchise. This image of the werewolf is of a large, vicious wolf standing upright and able to move bipedally. This is more of Hollywood than it is of Old World folk tales (in folk lore, the were-animal was believed to look like the beast it represented, be it fox, wolf, bat, etc., but was depicted in art with human traits to distinguish it visually from true animals).

So, we have “wolfman” tales from the Old World which became a staple of the cinema horror genre, which in turn evolved a virtual “Wiley Coyote” image of a bipedal wolf, which is now turning up in “eyewitness” accounts of werewolves in the American hinterland. Is there a lesson here for serious students of cryptozoology?

The “Gable” film is a hoax, but there is lesson to find here too. The image on the film has been variously described as an ape, a Chow dog, a cat, a bear, or an animal unknown to science. I thought it resembled an ape (it had broad shoulders that rolled as it shifted its weight), but I also realized that since it traveled only a short distance on all fours, it could have been a human in a costume (and I thought it probably was, the skeptic that I am).

What WAS surprising about the confession of a hoax is that the actual re-enactment of the “dogman” segment revealed the costume used to look different and more “real” on the original film than it did “in person” (startlingly so, so much so even the film maker was surprised). What is the lesson here, I wonder?

By: inbetween

inbetween — Fri, 26 Mar 2010 15:43:19 +0000

Well , time for me to eat crow , although the film accurately portrays what we saw in the early seventies it clearly isn’t .I said that I was sure this was real, I was wrong .So maybe I should return to my more skeptical side so as not to make the same mistake twice.Look for me in skeptics aisle.

By: marzook

marzook — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:54:21 +0000

According to the filmmaker, on Linda Godfrey’s myspace site, the hairs and stuff were real, not effects, as he used old film stock and vintage camera. she has posted some stills of how it was done.

http://blogs.myspace.com/lindagodfrey

By: Cryptoraptor

Cryptoraptor — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:11:27 +0000

T.Richman, I agree. Your assessment is similar to what I posted above.

Everyone else seems to be focusing on the blurry, indiscernible “creature” but I couldn’t get beyond the seemingly doctored film quality.

By: T.Richman

T.Richman — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:22:46 +0000

14 years of working with film of all types and age, repair, restoration and transferring. The wear and tear on this film seems fabricated to me.