These videos need another look since the last thread seemed to scractch the surface with out still frame analysis. The film was passed off as a hoax too quickly. A person possibly found the film at an estate sale. Did everyone see video 2 with the mauled woman? ........very real......scary.......These videos have a homemade flavor and could be the real deal..................a BF attack. BFs have been reported to stock game and attack on all four legs. The first part of the video looks like plain old simple family life, then the attack part is at the end. If hoaxed, the family life part would not usually be present. Video 2 shows a half eaten lady and this would take more than some country bumkin hoaxers.

When the animal first begins the charge on it hands and knees, its left lower leg and foot stick up but are blurry. If you run across the carpet on all fours, your lower legs from knees to the foot will stick up as you run. Try a mock charge on your dog.

The animal's head is round and high and not low and flat like a bear. The shoulders are huge. Someone said it looks like a Baboon because the right lower leg sticks up half way through the charge and momentarily and looks like a tail. Someone else said looks like a gorilla attack, and it does. At the end, a few frames show teeth which pass so quickly, it's not noticed just as would happen during a real attack.

One comment was a dog with a skin tied to it. The charging animals shoulders and sides show no movement of loose skin, but the back lower legs kick up looking like a tail or flapping skin.

The second film shows the same lady chopping wood in the first film but half eaten. This is really scary and such attacks have been reported in the past when a BF has been ticked off. My opinion is BFs rarely attack, but there are probably a few vicious individuals out of a larger group.

This shows snow mobiling, a dog and snow, the lady and her truck, the drive and the animal attack. The film was shot over a period of months.

One question is, two people seem to be in the truck. The passenger is seen in the rear view mirror with the camera, and this same person gets out to make the film. Why doesn't the film maker get back in the truck during the charge? Panicked and froze............something happened?...........attack was too fast to react?

Another point is the trees and area provide no evidence of the animal's size.

Video 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfmoGZRZMA...PL&index=44

This is called Gable film 2 and the black haired lady has been eaten. This is pretty graphic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw...DB5&index=0


Video 3: A real polished version of the events with a picture of the film maker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQVyxA3ROys...feature=related




How can I copy a frame over to my paint program to show it?

The videos need another look? Are you suggesting this is evidence of a realistic bf attack? I'm supposed to believe someone got a bf attack on video, that a different video shows the supposed results of this bf attack (a half-eaten woman), and they show up on youtube* but nary a thing is written about it in the press?

So let me get this straight... you put the lime in the coconut and mix it all up...

Click to view attachment

* (none of the youtube links took me to actual videos)

RayG

georgerm, all three links have this message: "The URL contained a malformed video ID."

I've seen the first one before, but not the second and third one.

Hey Georgerm!
First, what makes you think it is a BF and not a Dogman as is commonly believed? Do you think they are one and the same? Secondly, why do say it is a woman in the film and not a man? Also, are you aware that this video is copywrited by Mindstage Productions? I have been looking at this video also, and my questions are genuine; however, my intent is to discover, for certain, if it is a hoax or a real event. BTW, there are lots of freeware and shareware programs that you can use to capture still frames from video. ABS video editor, VirtualDub are two that might help. I am fortunate to have several programs that I use and not all are FW or SW but if I can I'll figure out a combo of freeware or shareware and pm you with a better suggestion.

pretty cool stuff but was it ever on cnn? where did this originate?

This link should work.

labeled: "Gable Film Part 2", with half eaten lady.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw

Hey orcoastapeman!
I'm not sure of its origins but I believe it's been viral on YT for a long time now.

I doubt it's true given the unanswered murder angle specially.

I just found this...

http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/...-plot-thickens/

Well, take this for whatever its worth but the original gable film is edited. The whole "attack scene" where you see the mouth etc right on the camera appears to be from a dog in a fence or cage and not from whatever ran in the field. However, whatever you see in the field wasnt the same as the "mouth scene" . If you look really closely at the mouth part you can see a fence in the background on either side of it. (appears to be a chainlink fence to me) Just my two cents. Pretty cool vid though. The subject in the film looks like a person also in a fur suit on all fours to me.

very interesting...sounds like ah..ah...movie?

1. The first gable film is edited, although it is called to be unedited. This shurly isnt necessary if its the real deal or genuine in any way.
2. BF on all fours are not compareable to humans. Due to their longer arms they dont have to "run" on their knees. It also wouldnt be very effective and even dangerous.
3. Gable Film 2 shows a half eaten body/dummy. BF doesnt seem to be able for the shown shark like vanishing of the whole lower body. BFs weapons No. 1 are his hands/arms not monster like jaws. If you look at primates it is much more likely that BF would rip of arms and legs. I dont think it is even possible with any strength to rip someone at the shown spot.
4. Where is the lower body? It seems to be eaten, which is quite scarry for a horror movie but BF eating half a human doesnt sounds to realistic.
5. The whole charging scene looks more like a defensive reaction. BF shows itself, gets eye/camera contact and than charges. If so, why did it eat anything of the human? It shurly isnt a good hunting strategy.

Far fetched, if I wouldnt be shure its a fake:
It might be a handycaped BF not able to walk anymore and by that possibly after anything to eat. A clumsy human not fleeing might have been a good opertunity. But this doesnt fit the gable film 2 as BF realy doesnt seem to be able to eat the leg bones. They should be arround somewhere at the scene.

Just my 2 cent.

I really don't think this is true. All they would need is a shovel and a dead deer.

Just dig a waist deep hole and have the "victim" stand in it, then lay over forward on the ground. Back-fill the hole, spread the deer guts around, and viola! a half eaten person.

I'm a country bumpkin, and I could do it.

Can't believe my links are outdated already. I have copies on Windows Media Player but don't know how to upload if needed. Can we upload to our own server?

I'm not pushing the film, but won't throw it into the hoax heap just because it seems too real to believe. We have something here. Many times we say hoax, when we need to say possible but no way to prove, or possible but can't say until researched and video analyzed.



You have to admitt, the film looks like a genuine old home movie. The truck in the film looks like my old 1970 Ford. Seems unlikely someone would go to the trouble to fake. One version is edited, but video 1 shows unrelated footage of a landy chopping wood, etc. and appears unedited. The lady chopping wood looks like the mauled lady in video 2.




Good point, but a BFs arms and legs are close to humans in proportion, where as a gorilla can run hunched over with hands and feet on the ground. My belief is a BF can run on hands and knees like a human can. Humans can stock game this way and speed up when needed. BFs can most likely go much faster as shown in the film. As mentioned before the back leg from the knee to the foot pops up during the scramble.




Good point. The body could have been scavaged by a bear, coyote, etc. Who is to say a BF can rip off a leg and eat it like a drum stick. yuck..........pretty gruesome and scary to think a small percentage of BFs are this savage. BFs have been reported to rip black bears into pieces. Will post report if needed.




Good point but how do we know? As mentioned above, it could be defensive act of murder while scavangers cleaned up the rest. However, most BF defensive attacks result in mock charges. A starving animal is dangerous and will attack quickly. Read a report of a starving black bear attacking tourist in a forest park and partially eating one. A man a trourist ran to his car, grabbed a rifle, and shot it dead. Some animals are not nice.






Interesting point a starving handicapped BF with a broken ankle attacks. Possible. Again, animals could haul off bones to their den for finish up.

Just my 2 cent. Good points and 5 cents worth along with my comments.

Here is an upload try of video 2. ........won't upload? It's in a flv. format

I have not studied enough about the dogman. For now BF is more real and reported to be throug out the US.

Mindstage can complain but this discussion is not for profit.

Can someone use the freeware and catch the first part of the attack to see the back leg from the knee to the foot sticking up at 45 degrees for just a split second?



I read your report way back when and noticed the pattern that could be a pattern from branches, grass and who knows what. The caninies look too short for a dog. The video seems too hoaky and homegrown to have someone clever enough to splice in split second teeth and mouth. Pretty scary if real.



Good points and maybe everyone is just passing it off as a hoax or its going under the radar.




This would be an animal kill and not a murder, human on human, which would require a different degree of investigation.




Sorry about the country bumkin comment; I'm one too and used the term too quickly. You have a good point, but due to the home video flavor and the age of the film, this seem like too much trouble for a film that would make nothing. Did they rent cop outfits?

Another observation: The film seems to be a film of a film since during the last segment, a movie projector is shown. Someone must have filmed the screen while an old reel to reel film was shown. Just a low tech way to transfer reel to reel to video. This adds to authenticity since film or video alteration on computer was not possible during the 1970s for the average person or at all. Keep an open mind.

No problem. I wasn't implying that I was offended, just that I don't see anything in the second film that would have had to have been done by professional film makers.

Actually, the accurate look and feel of the image quality, and the elements in the film that appear period-authentic are to me, more convincing.

That said - still not convinced.

Thank you, Ty.

My impression is that this is a good attempt at a home made horror film. IMO, if that was a real attack scene, there would be blood and flesh all over the place and it would be a much more gruesome scene than is on the film.

Also, at 0:17 secs, what does that sign say? "Part 2, Attack Scene" ? I can't tell.

I wonder if the half-eaten woman is this lady?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf4EaDtbBEk

RayG

I think the half-eaten woman is actually the guy that was chopping firewood (in relax-fit jeans no less...he was ahead of his fashion time)

I think you're on to something, RR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrZuF4gKT4&NR=1

First of all, I believe it is a man in the film, not a woman. Second, I'm not sure that I buy into the welded wire idea. Also, Georgerm, my statement about Mindstage Prod. was just to point out that a production company has the copywrite on the film which, I don't think, helps the films credibility. Interesting email from quinlan----and the rest from that blog. Also, I don't think a human could "run" on all fours so fast or for so long over wooded terrain, zig-zagging like the animal in this film does.

If you look really closely you can even see that its chainlink fencing. (can see how the joints fit together)

@georgem:

1.1. The edit is at the end of the attac, the dog like teeths are inserted. I can realy say that, I was quite into this first film as it was discussed earlier. From a filmmakers point of view the teeths make sense, its a shocker, it generates a feeling hindering the mind to think rational.

1.2. Yes the film looks genuine in some way. But all in all thats what viral marketing is all about and this whole film was somehow connected to a song release. It is no problem to go out now with old stock film and a camera and fake this. This film should look genuine. The two part thing here points to viral marketing again as it pushes the thrustworthiness of the whole thing and can stop skeptics discussing the first film when you publish the second one, confusing people. The second film has this slaughter scarryness that further initiates feelings blocking the mind and the two films together or better said the interessting parts are a perfect "attraktions Montage" (I dont know the english term). It basically is the cheap way to show something like a car crash or simular. Its about establishing a dangerous situation and than NOT show the actual happenings but just the outcome. Now, as you would need something in the first part to show that this is realy a confrontation you need something to show that the cameraman/women doesnt/couldnt flee and realy was attaced. With such a homemove style, one camera shot scene, the only way possible is to show something indicating an actual attac beyond the possibility of a bluff charge, from the victims (the only camera) point of view. You see the teeths are a good idea, but as they are integrated in such a bad way it seems that they forgot them at first and inserted them poorly in the edit. Without the teeth in gable film 1 it wouldnt be clear that this wasnt a bluff charge and the cameraman/woman just jumped into the car. It also initiates interesst in the "afterstory". Now whats better then gable film 2?

Even if it wasnt made now and even if it wasnt connected to the songs campaign in the beginning it could easily be a short mocumentary, the cheapest way to do a film sometimes (depends on the costumes and special effects) and on the other hand a real challenge for a filmmaker.
Although the following link is in german its basically about some shorts depicting allegedly mystery recordings. Its all fake. The gable films would fit perfectly. The master of this fakes is Jean-Teddy Filippe and there are much more like him out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwdd7jF7Ae4

2. Good point, I cant say to much about this. To me it seems ineffective, shurly thats not worth much.

3./4./partly 5. Very good point, I realy doesnt thought about scavengers. Eliminates my points made.


6 cents now

'Data' date='Oct 6 2009, 03:25 AM' post='561810']
@georgem:



You make some very valid points which are hard to explain away but................The teeth aren't visable and flash by too quickly when showing the film in regular speed. The audience wouldn't be aware. To fake this, why not make the audience react by showing more teeth footage? The teeth don't look like Dog's teeth since the cannines are too short. Post some pictures if you can find them. However, I always thought BF had human like teeth from some reports. See the picture of dog teeth at the bottom of the page.



Look at the attack in slow mo and see the teeth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiRSk80muD8

Gable film 2 graphic content of mauled woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw









The question is why would someone want to go to all the trouble to do this? Why spend the money by using a very expensive ape costume with a man inside? Ask Bill Munns. This ain't no dog in animal skins. This is a primate..................real or really expensive fake. Let's get a costume expert to discuss 1970 costume making for realy Hollywood movies and the expense.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwdd7jF7Ae4

I see your point. Taking an old film and adding a fake sea diver story line to it. A clever way to fool people but the part about expense applies. A man pulls another underwater in the film but what is this supposed to mean? A cheap film is one thing, but expensive props like a moving ape doesn't register unlike a few guys in diving outfits.

This film IMHO falls into the possible category and not in the trash bid of proven hoaxes.

Is the film maker still alive?

Does someone have a story as to how the film was found or made?

PostToastie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37srLqgKVI
This film was found in a box of stuff bought at an estate sale in 2004 in lower Michigan, no-one knows who it i...
I tinkered a bit with the Gable Film, which is copyrighted by Mindstage Productions.

This film was found in a box of stuff bought at an estate sale in 2004 in lower Michigan, no-one knows who it is or what happened to them.

Can someone get the original and analyze it?

What does Bill Munns think about the costume or ape?

Without some definate answers, we may never know.

Gable film 1 full film
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jQYbgEZrTA

Hi Georgerm,

first of all let me say that I realy like our discussion. If I sometimes sound rude thats not my intention, but its quite difficult to express myself in a foreign language discussing such a complex topic. I try to keep it straight to at least make my points clear.

Teeth: The teeth are visible for some (I cant realy count them on youtube) frames. I always saw them, maybe just me. Even if other people doesnt see them conscious it doesnt mean much. There is still the sientificaly falsified believe in so called subliminal flashing of informtion in film with sustained effects and such a bad insert nobody would show for a long time. Because of my studies, that were exactly viral marketing and memetics in TV and Film, as well as adoption of the greenwald subliminal method into film content this gable films are red flags for me.
What kind of teeths are shown I dont know but they dont seem in anyway connected to the footage before and after.

quote:
The question is why would someone want to go to all the trouble to do this?

Thats an easy one. To do this film is much cheaper than get any attention for the "dogman song" by usual means. Also you might check what the young Steven Spielberg or better said his parents invested in just doing some filming. Just look how much people here invest in their hobby and you will see this film is not out of reach of a privat budget. The Costume thing needs to be analysed. Munns would be great.

The divers: Its just an example I choose it as in this mocumentary they faked time in some parts (in fact this mocumentary is several small films, the diver is possibly the worst). If you want to see a high end one look for "Kubrick, Nixon and the man on the moon", you might find it on youtube or google video, real fun to watch and it widens your mind regading TV and manipulation.

Regarding your other questions: I dont know who the filmmaker was. If its a intendet fake he shurly wouldnt show up, all in all it doesnt made it to CNN or FOX. The story about the real estate sale is also not realy proven. Maybe you heared the story of the swiss unicorn some time ago, there they even developed two characters, complete with names, photos, other videos, a blog etc. Thats now proven viral marketing, long after I found the smocking gun. If I would have made a fake I shurly would find ways to get it published with what story ever. And by the way, what exposed the unicorn was the fact that they published a real high quality version. Thats why you should never trust enhanced youtube versions. Not unless you know the uploader. This because the fakers upload enhancements themself to satisfy the audience but shurly they dont show the flaws of their fakes. And another indication of viral marketing is also if someone gets an account on some related forum and post nearly wright away the film. Its called seeding.

The original would be nice but the film production that bought this film and published it pulled out after some time, because they themself "then" realised "its likly to be a fake". Funny that this was at the time people were more and more asking for the original or at least a high quality digital version.

greets

Not for nothin', I believe that Mindstage Productions claims the original film disintegrated in the 'digitizing projector'. However, I have heard that the radio dj that started the whole ado about the Michigan Dogman in recent times has the original film. IDK which is true.

Looks like this will go down as just another engima, unless someone comes forward with the story. Very interesting and possibly true (more than I can say about a lot of these), but unverifiable in its present form.

You do really well in English and never realized you were from Austria. Well, this is all I can say about the film until more information comes in. Your points are well taken and some film fakers are really good.

Either way, it's really disturbing. It looks real to me.

Thanks for that Georgerm, it realy seems our discussion is at a dead end until more is known or analysed. But if your sometime bored go for "Kubrick, Nixon and the man on the moon" its amazing.

regards

You guys should check out the videos done by a 'GurillABLE' on YouTube, they are very convincing. I plan to try to duplicate the guy's results for verification, I'll post my results here if I can ever get to it!

I don't get how people see a dogMAN, or a bigfoot. Looks like nothing more than a blurry dog to me. Perhaps a chow.

I'm checking out Gurillable's vids now. He seems to think aspects of it are a hoax.

The clothes on the half lady don't match the lady in the Gable film.

I don't recall seeing this in the Gable film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOvZbH1Ydc Anyone know where about this is in the film?

Has anyone looked into past newspaper articles to see if they can find anything on a Gable family? Something like this would have been reported. Maybe look under Aaron Gable. Not a very common name, even though my first name is the same:)

Dogs would have a low, flat head with ears. This creature has a round held held up high. See pictures below.





Gable film 1 and 2 could have a time lapse of days or weeks. The clothes would be different unless the lady never did laundry. Is this what you mean?

The utube film makes little sense.




This is a great idea. Someone could check police reports.

Do we know what town this family lived in?

Where did you get the name Aaron Gable?

That segment is in the first Gable film, where the kid is using the camera, then films himself in the mirror, then pans left, over the driver and sees that thing running parallel to the truck. It crosses the road, and they stop the truck. The driver gets out with the camera and chases it. etc etc etc

Edited to add:

The name Aaron Gable, comes from the second film of the cop holding up a sign that says, " victim Aaron Gable ". Remember, the kid was left in the truck, supposedly, and got away, getting the police, etc etc etc. So the police would know in that same day, or next morning. The cop car, is a 1972 Olds I think. That gives a basic time frame of 72/73/74 for the film. I have pics lifted from the film at this PhotoBucket site of mine.

http://s733.photobucket.com/albums/ww339/G...tion=firstLogin

Hey Graz!
I think you might be filling in some gaps in the film with some assumptions. We never actually see the creature run across the road. We don't see the camera pan past the driver. In fact, if you watch the segment where we see the creature running parallel to the truck I see the creature turn around and run in the opposite direction and fro
the door opening, as seen in this segment, it looks to me to be the passenger door. Of course this was a reel of film originally, an assumption on it's own, with footage that was shot in segments over a period of time (days, maybe weeks or even longer); so, it is really hard to judge the flow of events as they happened in real time. Anyway, that's my take on it.

This part of the film never came through clearly..........thanks




The kid must have witnessed the attack. What town did this happen near? Someone could check police files or news articles.




Can you lift a picture that shows the animal just as it begins its charge and the back leg from the knee to the foot lifts up?

The link georgerm posted in the other Gable thread, to me, shows the best quality video of the charge at 1:50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQVyxA3ROys...feature=related

Thanks, good film.

C'mon guys. The Sign the policeman is holding says 'REEL 2 ATTACK'. Its a film people. Or somehow Police evidence has ended up in someone attic.

Fake. Look at how it runs. The shoulders stick out at the sides, the butt sticks up higher than the shoulders up in the air. It's a person in a suit.

Maybe they were hoping "reel" was misspelled.

Does anyone know if they sell "Silver Bullets" for a .300 Win in Michigan or Wisconsin?

this thread is still very interesting to be continued......

Why Bill.... why? I love you man, but really?

It's a very nice, fake film. Cops holding cue cards for the camera during a gruesome murder investigation? Riiiight.

Bodies are too clean, no defensive wounds, no pooled blood etc. Boggy Creek style production that someone ran out of money on and forgot.

Apologies for bumping this, but the Gable film is 100% fake.

The "creature" is neither a bear, dog, or any other type of animal. It is a man in a suit "bounding" on all fours. Of course this can only be done over a short distance (unless he was holding hand-stilts), and a short distance is all that was shown.

The teeth are a horrendous prosthetic. The dentition is wrong for every animal on earth (four incisors with carnassials), and so horribly deformed that it could only be the mouth of the most over-fed pig in the world, not a normal animal. It is clearly a prosthetic in the mount of a human, or possibly a dog. My money is on human.