To the detractors; healthy skepticism is great, honestly. You have raised valid points for consideration, and that is what we should do, to avoid being seen as willing to believe anything, with no proof at all. Now, to address some of those points…

1. Length of the video – This was NOT taken with a video camera, or even a still camera with video function, but with a cell phone camera. Meaning, very little zoom capability, even on a nicer one, and not the greatest quality. Now, that alone accounts for the quality. Could also account, in more than one way, for the length. Some phones default to a very short video. Mine, an LG Lotus, sets for 30 seconds, unless you change it. Most people don’t routinely take videos with their cell phones, so they probably would not change that. Some phones could have a shorter preset as well. Plus, there is battery life. Siberia means COLD. This means batteries drain faster. So, the phone could have died before he could capture more. We don’t see it entering, maybe, because he saw it already in the river. Sure, this COULD indicate a fake, but it doesn’t automatically mean it IS a fake, just because it’s short.

2. The water movement – Sorry, but I have watched the video several times JUST to watch the water, and it looks right. The animal isn’t moving very quickly, and the water seems to follow the movement fairly well. Too grainy to be sure either way, really. But, having waded in creeks as a child, it looks believable to me.

3. The Sun – SO WHAT? Yeah, they can publish stuff that isn’t always above board, but then, they can also pick up what most would call “fringe stories”, and that doesn’t make those fake automatically. Seriously, do we write off Bigfoot, because the Sun and other similar publications have published Bigfoot stories? Didn’t think so.

4. The trunk – As stated in one of the above posts, a young mammoth was found with a lighter trunk, so that shows this could be real, even though lighter. The witness did, after all, state this was a young one. Plus, as several have already stated, elephants can and do frequently move with the trunk in the water, just like in this video. Then there is tie size ratio, if you assume this is a bear, between the head and the supposed fish. Or the “bear” wading across that much swift-moving water just to eat said fish.

5. Video quality – as stated, this is a CELL PHONE camera, not some regular video cam, and thus focusing isn’t an option. All the cell phones I have had, you can’t even see, while making the video, if the thing is focused or not.

So, every argument for a bear can be countered, with reasonable logic. A couple of other points. If you say it could be an elephant, and we are simply being lied to about the location, then please tell me in what areas elephants live that have mostly evergreen trees. Warmer climates tend to have mostly deciduous trees, and with elephants, you see more tropical varieties. Yet the video shows evergreens.

Plus, I still can’t think of ANYTHING on a bear, with the head pretty still, that can look like a pachyderm ear flapping.

So, should we look further? Of course! Investigate more? YES< a lot, as soon as possible. What we should not do is write this off as a fraud, without being sure. Oh, does anyone have more data on the DNA analysis of the hair? Can’t seem to locate anything on that.

It doesn’t look like a bear with a fish.

But another thing it does look like is a possible bear/fish graphically morphed into a pachyderm. Not talking as an expert, here, but this seems to me something that could be done.

P/G can’t be casually tossed off. But not only did the tech to run a computer fake (nor in the opinion of experts, a costume fake) not exist then, but P/G is backed by tons of evidence – including loads of sightings by people whose prior mindset tended to the extreme skeptical, and whose descriptions of the subject – most from scratch, many if not most from people who never saw P/G – would pull Patty out of the lineup.

This one? Boy I’d want to see more than one blurry video. Wouldn’t you? Wake me up when the people scouring that site – and I ain’t talking web – show us footprints and, well, BIG piles of poop. Among other things.

‘Til then, I can watch me some hockey.

That there’s no vid where it leaves the water, never mind enters it, isn’t a red flag. But it’s a yellow one for sure. Folks run out of film. But the mathematical laws of chance aren’t telling me to bet that.

Looking closer at the pictures it appears to be a bear like most people think but there is no way to be 100% sure of it.

With that being said I think many people here have some good points including PhotoExpert (though I disagree that he is 100%
right all the time unless Loren or Craig state otherwise)

Anyway if it’s not a bear then it is either an animal that looks
like one, an elephant of some kind or a hoax. There is a very
small chance it could be a Woolly Mammoth but I doubt it.

Also, if you watch the front legs move, they bend forward at a knee joint like a pachyderm has. A bear’s front legs move up and bend back with an elbow joint, like our elbow.

As for the lighter colored “snout”, there was a baby mammoth that was discovered in Siberia several years ago. You can find the article on the Internet. The photos clearly show the snout to be a lighter color than the head area. Possibly another juvenile trait.

In my opinion, the video shows a pachyderm of some type, whether, or not it’s a mammoth, I don’t know. Anything is possible, and wouldn’t it be remarkable if it was.

How did you state it? “the absurd assumptions that some so-called photography experts have made”. Hmm, really? I can’t speak for other photographic experts here but I can speak for myself. My professional opinion based on the facts at hand are not an assumption. On the other hand, a nonprofessional making claims based on his opinion are assumptions. That is what you did! Too bad you don’t have the professional credentials to back up your assumptions or your opinion might then be believable and actually hold some merit. As it stands, your opinion is wrong on so many levels because you lack both the facts and credentials. Let me point out to the readers here why your opinion is so flawed.

In your first post here, you talk about the neck structure of bears. I totally disagree with you. That disagreement is based on other videos posted on YouTube. I know of two that have a bear carrying a salmon in their mouths and it looks exactly like this video. One poster here even claimed that their child said it was a bear. Yet, you fail to see what a young child sees. Sad! If you look at the videos on YouTube, you will find several bear videos carrying fish. Yes, at least two of them look like this! You need to get out more. Of course, if you were a mammalogist and you were talking about the physical structures of bear anatomy, readers here might be more apt to believe you. But since you are not in that profession, your amature opinion counts for nothing!

In your first post, you talk about the mammoth tusks being seen. Really? Do you even know how big a mammoth tusks are? If you did, you would not be making such ridiculous statements. Since you are unaware of how big mammoth tusks are, try doing a simple Google search. You will find out in short time just how wrong and off your analysis truly is. And if you watch the bear videos on YouTube, you will see that the white linear structure you see is the underside of the salmon’s head near the belly region. Several videos on YouTube show this. If you squint to make the video look like this blurry one, you would probably see tusks, although they would be less than a foot long. The tusks you are seeing are part of the salmon in the bear’s mouth.

In your second post, you ramble on about the tusks again. I suggest you first do some reading before making such erroneous statements. Obviously, you are not a mammologist are you? Again, do a simple Google search to see how far off you are on the tusk issue.

In your third post, you speak of the slope of the mammoth’s back. Really, you have seen mammoths walking and know how their back looks in an upright position while traversing a river? Wow! Simply amazing. I say that because if you look at simple bear videos on YouTube, they look identical to this. Not to mention that where this video was supposedly filmed has the highest concentration of brown bears in all of Russia. See Tom, if you go by the facts and not amature conjecture, many things become clear.

In your last and most recent post, you offer an excuse as to why the video ends abruptly. Well, your right, it could be that is a possibility. However, when you add in all the red flags from experts like myself and other astute readers here at Cryptomundo who are not experts, we all reach the same identical and correct conclusion–THIS IS NOT A MAMMOTH!

Now Tom, there are so many things about this video that scream fake, it seems as if it is wishful thinking on your part that this is a mammoth video. We get that! It would be cool to think that a mammoth is seen in this video. It would be awesome! But most of us here are truly objective and base our opinions on facts. You have ignored the facts, made up excuses for fakery, and have been nothing but subjective in your wishful thinking and conclusions.

You are more of a conspiracy theorist than anyone here posting that this is not a mammoth. Next, you will telling us it is a mammoth after it is proven a hoax. You will say the Russian government is trying to cover it up because your flawed logic was proven wrong.

In your last post, you accuse the readers and posters here of being subjective and their “opinions” dripping with prejudice. I hate to ruin your party, but objective analysis by true experts in their field is not prejudice or subjective. It is fact and that fact is based on acquired knowledge and applying that knowledge in analyzing the facts at hand. All those indicators and red flags point to this video as fake!

Now unless you are some time of expert with credentials, I would take the opinion of the Cryptomundo readers and posters here over your amature and subjective opinions.

Another thing Tom, this article has been updated. Mr. Cohen of the Sun who posted this video and I believe now owns the copyright has been involved with other fraudulent videos that were enhanced with CGI. Are you still sticking to your opinion as the facts come about? Afterall, if you are truly objective in your opinion, you will have to take into account the eyewitness testimony and the “facts” surrounding this video. And this video was supplied by Mr. Cohen.

See Tom, before you try to discredit objective experts, you need to have all the facts. I for one, as others here, are not as you put it-”so called experts”. We are “true experts” because we are able to use our skills and abilities to call this a hoax way before most of the facts come out. While others here who are not experts, subjectively state that this is a mammoth. And that is how one gets egg on their face!

Sorry Tom, but you are wrong in your subjective assumptions. You need to read a few more books and watch a few more videos. You have to put in the time and gain knowledge before you sling arrows at true experts in the field. Those experts are not me, but the objective members of Cryptomundo such as DWA and Springheeledjack. True, I can be included in that list but I wanted to exclude myself in the last sentence because it is not always the experts who get it correct. It is the intelligent and objective cryptozoologists who make up this great site called Cryptomundo. It is those readers and posters like DWA and Springheeledjack that keep the subjective wishful thinkers in check. If they did not, we would be the laughing stock of skeptics who frequent this site.

Now you stand corrected! Keep on posting Tom but think before you post. Otherwise, you might put your foot in your mouth over and over again. See you around at Cryptomundo!

I can briefly put forth an example, that logically explains why the video plays out the way it does, in an unbiased manner: The person shooting the video took out his cell phone, began recording, and then the batteries died.

Beyond that, anything else is just a conspiracy theory. And most of the “opinions” about this event are dripping with prejudice and are not very scientific.

and you would do what? run up to it?

i’d suggest yelling and screaming to make it turn towards you, throw some rocks to get it’s attention?

and who says all mammoths are born with 16ft tusks?
(you didn’t)

anyway, it’s nice to monday morning quarterback, eh?

if this is real and not CGI, ain’t no bear.

the trunk thing could be the underside and hairless and lighter skin.

it does look like a bear carrying a big fish but the head of it and the scale does not compute.

In this case, you have footage of what you say is a mammoth. Pull back and look at the situation.

Why don’t we see it leave the river? Why don’t we see it enter the river? Why don’t we get closer? Why are we presented with a single small slice of footage of it in the middle of an act when presenting the beginning or end of the act would provide much stronger evidence? The cameraman simply doesn’t behave as a human would when presented with something so important.

This is why the Patterson/Gimlin footage remains the best piece of footage of a mystery ever released. It makes sense, 100%. Only then does it become worthwhile to examine in-depth.

There’s no need to examine what’s in this footage at all, because how the footage is presented rules it out from being anything of any importance.

You better believe if someone has footage of an animal they believe to be extinct, they’re gonna stay on that thing as long as possible and get as close as possible. The same goes for bigfoot, water monsters, or any other crypto beasts.

Seriously, you explain that you know something about photography, as you relate in your post that you have photographed elephants, and you still don’t see the red flags I have clearly pointed out? Really?

OK, OK, to each his own. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. LOL

Since you are at least somewhat knowledgeable in photography, maybe I can appeal to your photographic instincts and turn you around to my point of view or have you agree in part, with my opinion of this video.

If you were in Africa or Siberia, and you had your camera with you, as a photographer or avid cryptozoologist, why would you not continue filming until you ran out of memory card? Most video cams today can hold gigabytes of information. There is really no excuse to end the video so abruptly. If you are out in the Siberian wilderness, you know you are going to make sure you have plenty of storage space or backup. You would make sure you took extra batteries, etc. There is no excuse for the video ending early, except to deceive or hide or hoax the subject in question. This is not even the photographer in me speaking, this is the human in me speaking. It is human nature to try and view as much as possible of such a huge event taking place in front of you. Pardon the pun.

I want to get through to you and politely sway you to see the facts I have presented in my last post, even at the risk at going on, ad infinitum, as you say.

It is clear to me from video analysis, that this is either mediocre CGI, trying to create the illusion of a woolly mammoth or it is a deliberate deception of a bear carrying a fish or discarded trash bag with food material left in it, across a river. It is one or the other but NOT a woolly mammoth! How clear did I make my point? If I did not, just reread slowly what I wrote in my last post. You’ll eventually get it or at least I hope you will eventually get it.

We also have to look at the credibility of witness accounts and that includes the credibility of the witness or videographer. I am sure when the dust settles on this video, we will find out that the witness or in this case, the videographer is some type of hoaxer. Why? Because the facts I presented in my last post just scream out–HOAX! The red flags I mentioned should clearly point out that my opinion is correct and your opinion is absolutely wrong. I’ll bet you a beer I am right. Make that a coffee since I don’t drink beer! When it is all said and done, you will owe me a coffee if you choose to take me up on my little friendly wager.

I’ll just let you know in advance, I have never been wrong here at Cryptomundo. Care to take me up on my little wager?