57 Responses to “Blair Dog Project: Gable Film Fakery?”

1. drjon responds: September 29th, 2007 at 7:12 am

   “The original 8mm Gable Film is wholly owned and copyrighted by Mindstage Productions. It is not public domain and does not fall under the ‘fair use’ clause. ”

   This would be the case if the film had been made by Mindstage.

   This would absolutely not be the case if the film was found footage.

   Mindstage appear to be pulling a fast one. Fake. Mr Cook is not answering your question because he doesn’t actually want to lie, I suspect.

2. proriter responds: September 29th, 2007 at 7:42 am

   Cr*p. Give me “Rubber Johnny” any day.

3. fallofrain responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am

   Whatever the wereblob is, it does look like a reasonably real animal, from the little you can see of it. My guess though is, fake. And they seem to be going to a lot of trouble establishing a time period using vintage vehicles and equipment. Who really takes extended scenes emphasizing the camera in a rear view mirror? Seems like a combination Blair Witch and the alien autopsy footage.

4. Jos Gagné responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:34 am

   Fake fake fake. Staged like I’ve never seen before. Although I would love to see a movie spin-off out of this (legit fiction lol)

5. sschaper responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am

   I don’t know why someone would be shooting 8mm film out of their truck driving down the road.

   The critter moves like a gorilla, or maybe a bear. But we do not get a good shot of it at all. I’m not sure how a human could fake that. Maybe somebody else does?

   As to werewolves in broad daylight. . .

   Where was this supposed to have been taken? What region of the country?

6. Loren Coleman responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:52 am

   Updated material has been added to this blog.

7. sasquatch responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:53 am

   looks very Gorilla-like except for the area where a tail would and apparently is. The side-ways moves are very Gorilla-like, but the forward “Attack” is more dog or bear-like. Very interesting. I think of the pictures of that dead whatever the lady in Lousiana took of the roadkill.

   Cross between a large dog and a baboon. Maybe there is an unknown animal that’s neither bigfoot or werewolf out there. Have also read reports of these type things in Tennessee -I believe it was.

8. lorelady responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   Just a few comments…

   First, I am pretty sure the reason Steve didn’t give a yes or no answer to whether the film was hoaxed is that he honestly doesn’t know yet. Work is still being done on it. I do think it’s possible that the person who originally “found” the film is hoaxing Steve. People try that on me from time to time. But luckily I’ve never received anything good enough that I’ve felt compelled to share it with the world for opinions. Frankly, unless I had airtight evidence of its reality and origins, I probably wouldn’t, because I’d be accused of putting something out there to “prove” my books.But I’ve known Steve for 15 years and I don’t believe he would knowingly set forth an elaborately hoaxed film in the hopes of selling a few more Legend CDs. (The proceeds from those go to an animal shelter, btw.)

   As I’ve stated before, I’m most troubled by the film’s murky provenance (it could have been shot anywhere) and by the final segment of the mouth closeup, but think the charging animal is intriguing enough to at least examine technically before dismissing the whole thing out of hand or mocking it. I’d love to see anyone else’s tech analysis, beyond bare-eye appraisals, refuting the film’s authenticity. It would be great to have a clear answer,  whether it turns out to be an unidentified canid or a mega-weasel or something else entirely. And Steve has been clear that he allows for all those possibilities as well.

   One other very minor note, I did start the UCS but turned it over to another list member nine months ago when I was diagnosed with cancer.

   - Linda Godfrey

9. chris from flickerbulb dot com responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:04 am

   real.

10. szen responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:08 am

    wolverine to me: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/Csb/news/wolverine.jpg

11. Rappy responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:11 am

    It honestly reminds me of gorillas I’ve seen in zoos before. That’s what I see here.

12. Rick MG responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Dr Jon is right, copyright law doesn’t lie. The video is a fake. There are more honest ways to raise money for homeless dogs and cats. Loren, it’s a sad fact of life these days that due to the advancement in computer technology, videos and photographs claiming to show dogmen, chupacabras, mating sasquatch or mermaids caught in resort beach shark nets, can no longer be trusted.

13. captiannemo responds: September 29th, 2007 at 11:49 am

    The blending of the gorilla style of movement and the attack style of a large cougar is definately desturbing and I felt a slight chill.

    Fake or not, I have my doubts about it. But it is still creepy and Halloween is just a few weeks off.

14. Gary the Cat responds: September 29th, 2007 at 12:25 pm

    I’m saying fake.

    It appears to me the back legs are longer than the front-when it scrabbles sideways it shows this clearly.

    This to me suggests a man, as an ape has longer forearms than hindlegs which is why, when a good gorilla suit is done for a movie, the performer uses arm extensions to give a natural appearance.

    This looks ‘bottoms-up’ to me.

15. Nicholas responds: September 29th, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Looks like a Wolverine or even a Lynx… looks pretty damn big though… cool either way

16. Ceroill responds: September 29th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

    Hmmm. Has anyone checked on the veracity/reality of the cited experts that were quoted?

17. unclemonkey responds: September 29th, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    The footage itself is compelling — except for the money shot at the end of the snarling teeth. It seems Loren’s main complaint is with the way the film is packaged and that makes sense. It does call the whole thing into question. Has anyone followed up with talking to any of the other “experts” quoted at the end? (I believe Linda Godfrey has already commented.) What were they told of the nature of the footage? Do they check out as who they claim they are? Are there any business ties to Steve Cook and his company?

18. eireman responds: September 29th, 2007 at 4:03 pm

    I have to agree with the logic behind the copyright and what Rick MG was saying about trusting anything these days. I have posted this before and I will do so again: YouTube isn’t a scientific forum; it’s anything goes. Everything on that site must be taken with a grain (or more) or salt. And ultimately, footage is no substitute for solid, quantifiable evidence (to say nothing of an actual specimen) that can be collected in the field and analyzed inside and out in the laboratory. We can speculate these spurious postings until we’re blue in the face and it will never amount to anything.

19. AtomicMrEMonster responds: September 29th, 2007 at 4:25 pm

    If anyone can establish the date the video was “found,” we could use archive.org to see if the mouth/teeth shows up on the dogman site before the video came out. If that is the case, then it can’t be argued that the site graphic was taken from the film and we’ll have hard proof that this is a hoax.

    Well, harder than this blurb related to another clip that someone dug up: “A theatrical preview of the music video that’s part of ‘The Legend” 20th Anniversary Collectors Edition’.” That, plus how searching for “Mindstage Productions” will bring you to a page where you can buy a copy of the Dogman CD.

20. bill green responds: September 29th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    hey everyone very interesting new filmfootage of a possible sasquatch or cryptid but it needs more study etc done to it. thanks bill green

21. jamesrav responds: September 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    whatever the case, it’s well-done and entertaining. If they can create a Blair Witch type atmosphere, I’m intrigued (I liked the movie). It’s certainly not a man in a suit (how refreshing), if it’s done by computer, the blurry nature of the 60’s simulated time-frame is also a new twist and well-done. The ‘hysteria’ of the Blair Witch movie can’t be duplicated again though, even with the Internet, since it’s a ‘been there, done that’ situation.

22. Richard888 responds: September 29th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    I can see how this film might have been hoaxed.

    Morphing software is used to blend the movement and shape of a gorilla a bull and a dog into an unrecognizable animal.

    Other software is used to create an illusion in perspective so that the animal seems to charge at an incredible speed.

    The whole thing is filmed by an old analog camera, like in the alien autopsy film, to fix the viewer’s mind to the year 1967 when no such trick photography was possible so that suspicions can be suppressed.

23. Loren Coleman responds: September 29th, 2007 at 9:34 pm

    Apparently Steve Cook is declaring, via Linda Godfrey, late Saturday - interesting timing - that he has “discovered” the footage is hoaxed by something that is within the footage, but neither he nor she are announcing yet what “this” is.

24. Ceroill responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Hmm. Hardly surprising, is it?

25. crackheadcheesecake responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    I always wanted to join this website and after viewing this bit from youtube I now have. Glad to be here gentlemen. This video Is messed up. I can understand how we all can say It’s fake. My reasons would be It’s just getting marketed.  Then again, If I found solid hardcore In your face proof Bigfoot was real, I would try and make a buck or two or a few million. As for saying It’s edited, not really anything anyone can do to find out. Not now. So If It Is true, I don’t think It’s a dog or an ape. Unless an ape of any kind has the build or a gorilla or baboon with a long sharp tail? No really. Is there? I don’t know If there Is or not. Because the front end of this animal looks 100 percent ape, but that rear end doesn’t fit the picture. If this Is real, my gut tells me It’s an escaped animal from the zoo or some rednecks backyard who had illegal animals. There Is no reason at all to take this movie and assume just of of legend, It’s the dogman. None at all!

26. mrdark responds: September 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm

    This looks like the kind of thing I once wanted to do.

    When I was still in LA and had all my CGI FX Hollywood-type friends, I wanted to get a bottom-of-the-line old VHS camcorder and record a ‘period’ home video documenting a haunting using state of the art CGI to produce the ghostly FX in a way that looked 100% congruent with the date/quality of the videotape. Not for profit so much as fun, I do so love a good hoax.

    This is a good hoax. A lot of discipline and effort went into this one, although the storytelling in it lacks some common sense. (Why chase a large animal out into a field when you’re safe in your truck? Why keep filming when it’s clearly moving towards you in a menacing way? If the shooter was attacked and, as suggested by the teeth swipe at the end, killed, why isn’t there a police record behind this? How was the film found if the cameraman was killed? If he wasn’t killed, why wasn’t he on every new channel the next day showing his wounds and the film? If we conclude he had to have been killed, why was this just included in a random estate sale with no tale attached?)

    In short: it’s a technical achievement, but it fails where most hoaxes do, in the psychology and storytelling. The video taken from the truck of the bigfoot crossing the snowy road (supposedly shot by the teenage son) is one of the best I’ve seen for that reason alone: the narrative is sound, and they act as people would in that situation.

27. Samsquamch responds: September 30th, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Hi, first time poster here.

    I’m surprised there’s any debate about the veracity of this film at all. It’s so incredibly well set-up, in cinematic terms, that it hardly seems worth the time to enhance footage and technically scrutinize it. The production company logos at the beginning of the footage cement, in my mind, that the only true bits of this film are the grainy slice-of-life scenes at the beginning. Add to that the teeth-baring climax of the film, and you have a compelling piece of marketing for a low-budget film, but an obvious fake.

    Let me just say that I consider myself a Sasquatch Agnostic, and while I am open to the idea of large, undiscovered mammals in the woods of North America, I won’t believe completely until I see irrefutable footage or physical evidence. Why, if someone is concerned about bringing footage to the masses to prove the existence of creatures like sasquatch or - dare I say it - werewolves, would they spend time producing something that comes off like a Hollywood film trailer? Let the footage speak for itself.

28. harleyb responds: September 30th, 2007 at 3:10 am

    I am originally from Michigan and lived there over ten years, there is major weird stuff up there and I’ve heard about the dogman stories. But this is kind of sketchy to say the least; I would like to believe it is real, but most folks in Michigan have guns. It is cool to watch though.

29. Rappy responds: September 30th, 2007 at 4:11 am

    The film itself may be a hoax, but I still see a gorilla in there. I’m thinking that there might have been a zoo gorilla transposed into a rural scene…then again, I’m not really a film expert, so I could be wrong.

30. deejay responds: September 30th, 2007 at 8:03 am

    the teeth shot at the end scream hoax to me, but the animal was done VERY well.

31. serpent_seeker responds: September 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am

    WOW, I dont know about this footage but the authenticity of the film looks real but with most footages they seem to turn out to be fake. After I took a look at it, I’m amazed at the sight of that animal it does look like a gorilla but the speed on that animal rose up and ran all I can say is that’s one big animal, it doesn’t look like somebody inside of a costume.

32. sasquatch responds: September 30th, 2007 at 10:00 am

    What I first took to be a tail curving up over the rump is actually just a trick of light and shadow…there is no tail…This thing is either a gorilla, or a babbon…but it would have to be a huge baboon, like a mandrill. The other explanantion is a bigfoot on all fours-which I have read reports of. This would explain the longish back legs…But, it still moves like a canine or cat when moving forward. The first frames of it moving sideways are total Gorilla though…The wide shoulders, the flat lighter colored back etc. If it is a hoax then someone found a lost or escaped gorilla, went to film at an animal farm, or like someone else said; transported some gorilla footage into this supposed Michigan terrain via digital manipulation, but I’ve never seen anything as well done by a computer nerd… er-um modern special FX person. Possibly a bear with twisted pixels?

33. john5 responds: September 30th, 2007 at 1:48 pm

    An interesting film footage whatever it may be! The animal certainly does have gorilla-like movement at the beginning but then morphs into a definite cat-like motion when the animal begins its chase. At about the 3:13.100 of the footage counter on the original film one can see the cat-like running of this animal with all but one of its legs but one in the air while in mid stride. Typical large cat gait!

    The morphing can be clearly (!?) seen with around 3 seconds left in the lower enhanced video Loren has been so kind to include. The apparent transformation takes place so clearly and smoothly at this point I do see how this could have been faked with such a smooth transition even though some posts here claim there is technology to do so. If there is then why has it not appeared all over the filming industry and only in a small video clip of a relatively unknown beastie from Michigan?

    As far as the end of the original video, it is here that I question the authenticity of the film with the view inside the mouth and the shattered lens with a puncture hole. This does appear somewhat staged.

    One thing for sure is this animal is not a wolverine and I do not see any resemblance to a man thus I do not see it as any man-dog or werewolf. There are however many native legends of shapeshifters that occur throughout North and South America. This could be the footage of such a creature. What would the footage of a real-life shapeshifter look like if someone was lucky enough to (or unlucky enough) to capture it on film? would we be able to believe our eyes?

34. CrimsonFox79 responds: September 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    For the people who always ask stuff like- Oh who conveniently has a video camera rolling from behind their car window?

    Yes, in fact people do this. When technology is brand new to someone they often just make silly use of it, whether b/c they are just that excited to be using soemthing so high-tech, or for practice learning how to use it before trying it on something important like an event.

    When I got my first camcorder, I constantly had the thing on even in useless situations. I got footage of randomly walking around outside, pets running by, etc. Just to use it.

    And yes I did indeed bring it in the car to take random film from the passenger seat of wooded areas hoping to catch some deer on film or something.

    Unfortunately I never saw a cryptid. rarely even a deer for that matter. but the truth is, whether you want to admit it or not- people DO film from cars. People don’t only film stuff they pre-prepare for. People do take take pointless footage so when someone catches a creature “while filming from a car” it is totally possible that it’s not staged.

    I don’t have my camcorder anymore, but whenever I know I’m gonna be near woods, parks, etc. I keep my digital camera on me. Not intending on seeing cryptids, but I love taking pictures (btw yes, most photos i take- even of deer, dogs, etc. come out very blurry where you can often not tell what it is. so the blurry image complaints aren’t valid either b/c most un-staged photos DO come out blurry.)

    The dogman site seems to have a valid argument showing closeups of what appears to be shaped like a human leg, making this creature possibly a human crawling on all fours- which would give an unusual, un-humanish movement as well.

    The ending does seems staged though. Would it be possible to be attacked by an animal and somehow it films that split second of teeth and eye afterwards?

    Has the teeth and eye been studied by anyone to see if it matches those of an already existing animal. They could have filmed their dogs eye and teeth. Or the dog’s teeth and a human eye. I am sure that they can get some kind of comparison from those frames can’t they? Possibly even tell if the teeth are rubber from a mask and not real at all?

35. WhiteTiger responds: September 30th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    Bears, wolverine and all anthropoids including humans are out of the running since these are all plantigrade striders.

    Watch the charge sequence carefully and when the right rear leg comes fully into view you can clearly see a digitigrade articulation with the characteristic “backwards” articulation of the lowermost visible joint.

    The “flaw” cited at the Steve Cook website is itself a flawed perception, imo, since at the point of the sequence the stills are taken from the creature is quite obviously partially obscured behind terrain and vegetation features. The lower leg is simply hidden except for a short bit visible below the hockheel (to borrow a bit of horse terminology)… this gives the dubious impression of showing a human foot.

    So any plantigrade creature such as a bear, gorilla, wolverine or human is excluded from consideration unless one assumes there is a very sophisticated prosthesis in use here and the wearer is very well accustomed to it’s use.

    Hoax by some party along the provenance/custody chain is still possible by any of multiple technical means, but this is not a simple case of a misidentified mundane creature.

36. crypto-hunter465 responds: September 30th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    ok, looks to me like a wild cat. the way it moves, runs, reminds me of a large predatory cat. except for when it first comes into view. moves weird there. my vouch is for a new cat species

37. sausage1 responds: September 30th, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    Rule of thumb says anything on YOOTOOB is just a lot of old poo, but this one does look very gorilla like when you watch the enhanced version.

    Very good and entertaining.

38. tsunamicarlos responds: September 30th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

    One thing for me is certain — this is not a gorilla or ape of any kind. I have yet to see any primate use the stalking sequence seen here. From the very first frames, the creature seems very aware of the human’s presence — in fact, it is very visibly stalking the person who took the film, judging by the way it is moving. The fluidity of the movements seem very much like that of a big cat.

    It is a very odd piece of footage.

39. sasquatch responds: October 1st, 2007 at 12:44 am

    O.K. new thought; A big dog (like the one at the beginning)in a costume! It would have to be fairly elaborate, but maybe… With all the hoaxes with people wearing costumes, what about pets dressing up?!
    I don’t REALLY think so, but just maybe…

40. sasquatch responds: October 1st, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Seriously, I think this is the culprit; WOLVERINE. A HUGE MALE.

41. lerxst responds: October 1st, 2007 at 10:54 am

    It looks like a big chow.

42. CryptoGoji responds: October 1st, 2007 at 10:58 am

    What about just a photo of a dog’s mouth?? The shape of the “mouth” does not change as it lunges towards the camera. This just screams HOAX!!!! Were-blob-something or other.
    Second, why is a production company on the front of the video?? If it was found as the report says, it would not have been a production company video.
    Thirdly, who in Michagan does not own a gun?? Back in the sixties, there would have been a gun rack in the back of the Ford, someone would have walked with the camera man or woman with said gun if it was an unusual or unknown animal.
    Lastly, when the camera fall’s, there is no movement of the camera. It just lays there. If something “pounces” on a person, (I will use the camera movements from a cameraman at a football game for example) the camera will roll or turnover. There is nothing like that in this video. The camera just drops strait down.
    Nothing in this video seems real. It just seems fake.

43. Ceroill responds: October 1st, 2007 at 11:25 am

    Ok, maybe I’m missing something. What teeth baring? I’m sure I’m about to feel oblivious when someone points it out to me.

44. Lyndon responds: October 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Ceroill,

    Right at the very end, just before the camera crashes sideways, for a split fraction of a second there is a close up of what looks like teeth baring.

45. Ceroill responds: October 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am

    Ok, if you say so. I guess I’m blind or something. I just don’t see it.

46. mystery_man responds: October 1st, 2007 at 11:54 am

    I see the teeth too. Ceroill, you have to really watch close, blink and you’ll miss it. I didn’t notice it the first time I watched it (I must have blinked), but saw it on consecutive viewings. To me, it is a pretty cheeseball effect and detracts from the possible authenticity of the video. It just smacks of taking it too far for entertainment value and I cannot imagine a person would have the presence of mind to keep the camera steady in the face of a charging creature like that to the point we would see its maw close in, complete with fangs. The movement of the creature is intriguing to me, but the fang effect as well as some of the other circumstances surrounding the filming of the creature just don’t add up. I’m very skeptical.

47. Ceroill responds: October 1st, 2007 at 12:29 pm

    Well, MM, I guess I’m just blinking at the wrong time every time or something. So many others are seeing this, that I’ll trust for now that it’s there and that I’m somehow missing it. Oh well. I do agree that the early ‘home movies’ looking parts could be authentic as what they seem to be- bits of old home movies. Other than that I am also skeptical, though curious as to what that image really is.

48. joe levit responds: October 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    When I first watched the film it had the gorilla movement mentioned before at first, but seemed to then be like a bull charging around the tree. I didn’t see any cat-like movement, and the “tail” is odd either way.

    Not that I think this film is real, but the last part at the end with the fangs, etc. is not necessarily an automatic disqualifier. I mean, the way the film seems to progress is that this creature moves quickly, the person filming it realizes it’s time to run for it, and then we see jumpy film like somebody running. It is almost like the person filming turned around to see how close the creature was and shielded his or her body from the impact, which could then bring the camera to a position to view that bared-teeth face.

49. Loren Coleman responds: October 1st, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    It is remarkable to me that people are still leaving comments here about what animal or species it might be when this footage is allegedly clearly a hoax.

50. sasquatch responds: October 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pm

    O.K. Loren, then what’s the animal? Hoax-us Lupus?

51. WhiteTiger responds: October 1st, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    Loren, are you referring to the “human foot” stills at the Steve Cook site and the conclusion drawn from them? If so, then personally I find them quite suspect in an evidenciary sense.

    The whatsit is plainly standing in a small hollow with the bottoms of all four limbs obscured by the intervening terrain and vegetation. The clipped off view of the left rear leg does give something of the look of a human foot, but bear in mind that the same terrain would cut off the voew of the lower digitigrade leg.

    Given the inconclusive nature of that “proof”, the hoax conclusion based on it goes out the window.

    As I said earlier, hoax is quite possible by any of several means, but the “foot” certainly does not establish that it exists.

    Tiger

52. john5 responds: October 1st, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    I agree White Tiger. Steve Cook may have received so much flack, and even from pro cryptozoologists, that they were looking for an easy out to designate the footage a hoax. The supposed ‘human foot’ they highlight on the Dogman website is not clearly human in my opinion. Steve even mentioons that there is no accounting for the superhuman movements of this creature after the foot frames.

    The terrain and grass disrupt a clear view of the lower left leg but the motions of this creature before it charges could not be reproduced by a human on their hands and knees. The sideways motion alone covers far too much ground per side step than what could be provided with the distance between 2 knees. As well when the creature lurtches the rear right leg can be clearly seen in full extension and it is clearly a non-human appendage.

    If one can stop the original footage at 3:09.367 on the film counter 2 ears can be plainly seen on the top of the head. I cannot say for sure that the end of this film is for real but I cannot see any reason for the footage of this creature up to and including the charge that appears contrived given the limited methods I have for analysis.

    When viewing cryptids and other rare subjects caught on film we need to be prepared to see motions and behaviours unlike anything observed previously. The highly unusual can give an instant illusion to a viewer, especially an inexperienced one, that whatever they are seeing is probably a fraud.

    In my books this footage remains as indetermined and somewhat disturbing!

    Peace

53. jamesrav responds: October 2nd, 2007 at 2:21 am

    the phrase “allegedly clearly a hoax” is confusing to me - kind of like when Senator Craig said it was his “intent to resign” after the bathroom escapade, which he has wiggled out of for the time-being. Either it’s proven to be a hoax, or it’s an alleged hoax, it can’t be both at the same time. I will have to see the frames in question, if that was a guy in a costume he moves *really* convincingly, way better than I could do on all fours in a big bulky costume.

54. Bob K. responds: October 5th, 2007 at 4:53 am

    Towards the very end, the creatures shape seems to “blur” pretty noticably, and not in a natural looking sort of way which would indicate swift movement. For this reason, it seems fishy to me. Does anyone else see this?

55. ithilien responds: October 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm

    I’ve been looking for this video everywhere on the internet but was not aware it was called the “gable film”. Great and a bit of a surprise to find it at crypto. Visually it is quite compelling, but as mrdark commented, it falls apart when considered in context.

    As he also stated, the video of the sasquatch crossing the snowy road shot by father and son out getting firewood is more believable, and looks like the creature in my own sighting…large, massive but somewhat lanky from the shoulders down, a very large rounded head. curiously, there seems to be some “morphing” going on there too.

    I’m reminded of the sighting of the “black blob” on the trail that morphed into the standing sasquatch figure that i read o the internet a while back.

    Certainly some c-g expert would be able to tell if the morphing could be done digitally, but wouldn’t the movement be too fast for a human to hoax?

    If mrdak loves hoaxes, he should read The Trickster and the Paranormal by hansen.

56. starburst7596 responds: August 9th, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    I was listening to my dad tell stories about himself when he was younger and he told me a story about him and his whole family seeing a weird animal cross the street so we listened to a coast to coast podcast and a lady described the creature that was in the gable film and the description fit what my dad had saw perfectly..We watched the gable film and then we watched a video of a bear charging a man..the zigzag pattern the creature in the gable film was using to charge the man was almost the same pattern the bear used to charge the man…but when the creature turns its head you can see its not a bear and how it goes from bulky to skinny is definately not a bear..we then saw still frames of the gable film and i noticed that in one frame it looked like a deformed GIANT chihuahua…but in another frame we noticed that ALL four paws were off the ground which is impossible for any person in a suit to do…now the lady also said that some people have been chased well ive been researching everything that people say it kinda looked like..and well i started reading about wolves and taking notes and one of my notes said that their body is made for chasing large prey which is what the creature in the gable film does…and wolves are very intelligent well the creature my dad saw was intelligent because he didnt want people to know about it…so yeah this is why i think this creature is real maybe not the one in the gable film but still…by the way im only 13 and im investigating the area where my dad saw it in the 70’s which is when the gable film was filmed…did you ever say why you dont think this is real????

57. Voidmaster responds: August 20th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    Hey guys, I’m new around here. This topic itself finally got me to join, though I had been thinking about it for a while.

    Anyway, I don’t know what the creature in the film is, but I’ve got a pretty good idea that it isn’t a guy in a suit.

    My reason?
    Well, at one point the in question leaps over something(I presume a log), and from what I can see, all four of its feet leave the ground at the same time, and all four of its feet land at the same time.

    Humans can’t do this. When I observed this I was actually curious enough to try, and I ended up with a face full of concrete floor when I was done. (I probably looked like an idiot too, but at least I discovered valuable information.)

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|