New Gable Film Surfaces - 'Michigan Dogman' Victim

[truth finder]

now i now most of would of seen one of these Videos but it looks like they found Two more Vidoes of the Gable Videos,

http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-gable-film-surfaces-michigan-dogman.html

the first is the one most of us has seen already but in better quality and slow mos....

The Second shows an mauled women ( Graphic Be warned )

And the third shows what looks like the before of the original....

Any thoughts...

[size_of_light]

Jesus Christ that looked freaky! :eek:

I'm not familiar with this case but the footage in the first video didn't look like any animal I've ever seen and the way it moved convinced me it was no man in a costume.

Here's a direct link to the video as I found it hard to navigate through the blog you linked to and find it:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=60337033
Will go away and read up on this case now. Thanks.

[forestgrump]

Jesus Christ that looked freaky! :eek:

I'm not familiar with this case but the footage in the first video didn't look like any animal I've ever seen and the way it moved convinced me it was no man in a costume.

Here's a direct link to the video as I found it hard to navigate through the blog you linked to and find it:

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=60337033

Will go away and read up on this case now. Thanks.

You've probably found it by now but this is a good site about the subject.
http://www.michigan-dogman.com/

The encounters section has some interesting accounts and photographs.

[veritasvoice]

Definitely not a bear, its movements are simply too agile. Bears, even small ones, have a very distinctive lumbering gait.

At one point as it is heading towards the camera, it pushes off the ground with its back legs at speed (which is very clear in the slo-mo footage), and I've never seen a bear do that - its far more reminiscent of how a dog runs. And there's something about it that seems to lend an air of intelligence to the way its running towards the camera - freaky as hell.

Anyone else think this whole thing has a skinwalker vibe to it?

[size_of_light]

Yes veritas, 'skinwalker vibe' for sure.

I'm amazed by this footage. Never seen anything like it. I've read a bit about the case now and despite some opinions floating around that it's a hoax, there's no actual evidence for that other than the 'too good to be true' angle, which is ridiculous. Even Loren Coleman at Crytpomundo seems to have taken this approach to the film, which I find frustrating and baffling, since anyone with any sense of how animals really move as opposed to 'a man in a dogsuit' can immediately see that it's some sort of animal and not a man.

Slow motion enhancements show a long catlike tail at one point and two long ears which eliminates both gorillas and bears as the possible culprits.

I'd also challenge the best CGI artists in the world to re-produce anything that even remotely matches the sense of realism and authenticity of this footage.

Here's a brief summary of the story of how this film came to light, and some additional background, from Cryptomundo:

The “Gable film” is an edited 8mm film that has been raising a lot of questions and theories for the last few years. Many have declared this to be an elaborate hoax created by someone wanting to capitalize on the “Michigan Dogman” stories. The film itself is owned by MindStage Productions and can be seen online in a very edited and low quality version. It shows what many have said to be the actual cryptid creature lurking around the Wisconsin and adjacent states. Many researchers have claimed that this is just a hoax created by a radio DJ by the name of Steve Cook. The same person who helped create a fictional story of the “Michigan Dogman” as an April Fool’s joke, stated that he had acquired an old 8mm film with the images of a strange beast that attacks the camera man. He stated that the film was found in an estate sale in the lower peninsula of Michigan.

The 8mm reel did not have any detailed information about who or where the film was shot. The only information known was the inscription “Gable Case #MPO41177-1” that was on the film canister.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gable09/

Here's the footage with some info on the legend of this creature:

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

A short clip with an enhancement that clearly shows the long tail and also suggests some unusual 'shapeshifting' could be going on as it approaches the camera:

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

Finally, the background behind "The Gable Film Part 2", a very graphic film showing the mutilated remains of a man in a wooded area that matches the scenery in the original Gable footage:

I was at my little brother’s house Friday June 10th and my sister-in-law was watching Fox News. (She’s madly in lust with that Sean Hannity guy). A short segment came on about “the Beast of Bray Road”. Hannity then played a clip from a film named…”The Gable Film”.

Sirens went off in my head.

Our only uncle was a film nut in college, back in the seventies. He was always making home movies and beer commercials. He was even hired, (not for pay), to help the Michigan Department of Natural Resources investigate and document a bear attack, just north of Bellaire. (Our Grandmother worked in the Antrim County Courthouse,…. she had a hand in getting him the gig). The victim’s name was Aaron GABLE.

…..GABLE!!!

My mother tells us that after filming the attack scene, our Uncle John was so distraught that he packed up his stuff and moved to Florida, two weeks later!. Mom says his behavior was becoming very psychotic, he couldn’t sleep at night and he kept going on about how “bears have FIVE toes,….. dogs have four”!. Just a week after he left, a DNR officer hand-delivered the film that Uncle John made to my Mother’s house. It’s been in a box in the basement ever since.

Now, I seem to recall that these films usually lasted about five minutes or so, but the film we have is only about a minute long… and the end of it was obviously torn off, not cut clean. I wonder just how much is missing? We almost threw this film away just a couple of years ago, but I wound up buying a vintage projector on eBay, just to see what was on this film. (Boy, was I suprised). NOW,….. I find that there’s this “Gable” film out there?

I wonder if these two films are related. I’ll see if I can get it in better resolution, other than with Wifey’s camera-phone. (It might be expensive,….. but I’m sure it’ll be worth it).

One thing’s for certain, whatever it was on that clip that they played on Fox News,….. it sure didn’t look like no Bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFYnkyY5tU

[size_of_light]

Below is an update (from October 2007) on the case from Cryptomundo.

Note the sneering, dismissive tone of the post, concluding that it's a hoax, again based on what seems to be little, or non-existent evidence. There's a (now dead) link which should have directed readers to more information from Steve Cook (who originally acquired the mysterious film) about why it has turned out to be an 'unintentional hoax'.

All I can see in the Cryptomundo article that led Loren Coleman to form this conclusion is that apparently some people (who?) have noticed a human foot on the animal in a couple of frames. :confused:

I haven't found that frame analysis anywhere yet, but even if something that looked like a human foot did appear in three frames, how does that render the film a hoax? What if this creature is a shapeshifter and it briefly manifested a human foot for a few instants?

Nobody will ever convince me there's a guy in a suit in that footage. It's physically and intuitively impossible for a human to move like that and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly has limited experience observing and understanding the natural movements of animals.

If this does all turn out to be a hoax now, I'll look like a complete fool for saying that, but what the hell. :p

Here's the Cryptomundo update. I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't a gatekeeper site, intended to steer people away from actual cryptid phenomena, since they dismiss this very easily and yet have a tendency to dwell on a lot less convincing or downright absurd or boring stories:

The Gable Film is merely, as seemed obvious in the beginning, an alleged hoax. Many readers have sent in comments and links. I will pluck one, that of Cyptomundo reader SC, as an example that gets directly to the point:

Follow this link to read Mr. Steve Cook’s explanation as to the nature of the “unintended hoax.”

It seems three frames of the film reveal a human leg moving to the side, which, according to him, exposes the “creature” as a man on all fours. Pondering the footage from this new perspective has lead Mr. Cook to conclude it is definitely faked, but not intentionally created to hoax anyone. It is merely vintage footage of an amateur crew of filmmakers working on their own backyard “Boggy Creek.” Pondering Mr. Cook’s conclusions, I can come up with a different idea. The obvious one. Let’s call it “The Intentional Hoax” theory.SC

If you follow the link to Steve Cook’s posting, you will find his message ends with the following paragraphs:

On the other side of that coin, I now fully understand why witnesses to real events are so reluctant to come forward with evidence; and even when they do, they do not want their name associated with the story. Despite the fact that I had no intent to ever market the film in any form, and that I never claimed it to be authentic, my character suddenly came into question. In the six days The Gable Film was publicly available, I was grilled, cajoled, insulted, and called everything from a profiteer to a liar to other names I would be ashamed to type. Not just from one or two people, but from hundreds. In addition, my website has been hacked, and the film and several other unpublished files have been stolen and posted on the internet.

In conclusion, there are a handful of self proclaimed experts in the crypto-creature industry (make no mistake folks, it’s an industry, and a lucrative proposition for some of them) who have become so jaded and cynical, they really should look for a new line of work. It would seem that if evidence has not had the good sense to fall into their lap it is automatically dismissed as a fraud, and so is anyone associated with it. It is precisely that attitude that will prevent real evidence, when it comes, from ever seeing the light of day. There is no need to mention any names. You know who you are.

First, one must wonder why he took this all so personally?

The reality, of course, is that such discussions as evidenced above infrequently issue from people who seem to not understand that healthy skepticism is part of cryptozoology, that no one in cryptozoology really makes any money, and that most of us have all heard it before. As John Green says, it takes strong personalities in the field to deal with all the criticisms hurled our way, inside and outside the community.

Those who have promoted this footage, who either were hoaxed themselves or were behind this alleged docudrama, should not be surprised by hundreds of people who wish to say something, one way or the other, about this Gable Film. That’s what happens, and that’s what is assumed would occur in our media age. It has nothing to do with people wanting to undermine the good stories and the remarkable sightings. On the contrary, it has a lot to do with the credibility of the field being maintained at a high standard, in an awkward age of YouTube-screened hoaxes and website showings linked to wild speculations.

This state of affairs has been known in the Bigfoot world for years, and merely comes down to, “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/exit-wolfman/

[size_of_light]

Cryptomundo's original article on the case from September 2007:

It’s time to bring out the silver bullets. Okay, Cryptomundo will stop ignoring the Gable Film, and take up the hunt.

Since September 24, I’ve tried to get some straight answers about a piece of footage that has been floating around the internet, the so-called “Gable Film.” The footage shows, well, let me just say it outloud, what appears to be a “werewolf” and is being promoted as nonfiction.

As the story goes, Michigan disc jockey Steve Cook obtained the rights to the film reportedly taken with an old 8 mm camera. The Gable Film was allegedly found in an estate sale in the lower Peninsula.

Steve Cook’s Michigan Dogman site was created around the song “The Legend” that was allegedly recorded a couple decades ago as a prank. After it aired, folks began calling the radio station and saying they had seen the creature described in the song. Fast forward to this recent “discovered” film that is said to “prove” the “Legend.”

To me this sounds like a song and dance I’ve heard before, too good to be true. But Cryptomundo readers, here’s the footage - and the Dogman site (link below) gets their viewers from Cryptomundo. Below, there is more discussion.

What do you think?

I wrote Steve Cook about this, being very open with my concerns about this footage:

The Gable Film is a good story, and builds in many ways like The Blair Witch Horror and the discovered film canisters of the Jersey Devil film. As a work of cryptofiction cinema and art, it can stand on its own, without it being declared to be nonfiction. I’ve worked with Haxan Films folks, and understand [after the fact, why they went about] creating of such fakes, planted early, to promote such things.

I am not saying you are doing any of this, but the background of the April Fool’s prank, the Legend, the poetry of it all, the scenario, the unfolding have to be seen as obvious clues. You have to be asked the hard question - is this a piece of creative narrative fiction performance art - before this gets all blown out of proportion and it becomes a cornerstone of supposedly real werewolf lore?Loren Coleman

Steve Cook replied:

First, let me re-state that I do not take a position on the authenticity of evidence presented on michigan-dogman.com. Of course I have a personal opinion, but to state it publicly would serve nothing more than to encourage the kind of charges your e-mail implies. The simple answer is, I don’t know what The Gable Film is or what it shows.

I understand fully the scripted nature of this. For that reason, we expended considerable effort having it analyzed by a range of people from a variety of backgrounds. Even though none of those people was able to find an obvious flaw indicating a forgery, I still was very hesitant to release it before we had more answers.

Then a few weeks ago, I offered a private preview of the film to Linda Godfrey’s Yahoo group, the Unknown Creature Spot. Linda and I are old friends, going back some 15 years. I placed the film on YouTube for two days and invited members of UCS view and evaluate it. In that time, the film was pirated by at least three and perhaps many more individuals. That forced my hand, leading to the release of the video now on my website.

The key question you need to ask is, do I stand to gain by releasing a forged film? The answer is no. I have no intention of marketing or selling the Gable Film in any form. I have no desire to do interview shows or speaking tours. If the resulting publicity leads to increased sales of “The Legend,” it will just mean more work packaging and mailing - because I donate the profits from the sale of the CD/DVD set to charity. I put The Gable Film out there because I think it needs to be seen.Steve Cook

Obviously, I understand the gray area inhabited by Steve Cook, but the bottomline is that Mr. Cook did not answer my question with a “yes or no” response.

The footage in fact, I see, is now generating wider and wider discussions as if it is real, across the internet. People want me to state my opinion on Cryptomundo, declare one way or another - or even come out in careful support of the film. Other emails are also coming in, from fans like Melanie, asking me about the “Blair Dog Project.”

Even with offers to look at this frame by frame that is not really illuminating. A deeper analyses of the frames merely will only convey what the creature, costumed or otherwise, looks like more clearly. It actually won’t do too much in revealing the reality behind what was filmed, one way or the other. At this point, this film is only as good as its context and its source. The origins of this footage are cloudy, at best. Unrevealed and untestable, if you believe the stories. A prank, if you consider the history, perhaps. I’ll stop there.

Okay, I won’t beat around the wolfbane, any longer. I don’t buy it. My past experiences and eye for forgeries tell me there’s something here that smells like a fake, a copycatted forgery, with the telltale signs of a found-film, the shaky camera, and the blurry imagery. Steve Cook may be a film genius or he may have been hoaxed, but there’s something that is very off about all of this for me. I think this is cryptofiction, developed out of the traditional folkloric motif of found treasures.

Other than that, until someone comes forth declaring they created the Gable Film to keep the tale going, what else do we all have to go on but our gut?

As I recently noted here about a “Sasquatch” film shown as new on YouTube, these kinds of incidents are sadly piling up in an ever increasing daily body count. Perhaps a whole new division of cryptozoology will have to be cryptocinemahoaxology?

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gable-film/

Loren Coleman doesn't really come across as a very credible investigator to me. I get a distinct vibe of jealousy from his correspondences with Steve Cook there, and a sense that he's already made up his mind on this case and wants it dismissed and forgotten about before enough evidence has even been compiled to form a preliminary conclusion on it.

[thelyran]

...Thanks for sending me that link SOL...and to be honest,can't make head or tail of the object.I d/l every video and will blow them up later...but this isn't off topic.but I need more information about the area

1.Was UFO's reported in the vicinity day or 2 earlier.

2.Is there military bases or storage areas for nuclear waste

3.Is there any tribal legends from the native Indians covering this discrption of being?
...that way,one can wittle down the possibilities.It's a freak,that's for sure.
The damage to the womans body...could be a traffic accident or something similar,and the perp who caused it used a local legend to cover their tracks
(Don't Berate me on that one...as I don't believe it myself,just exposing all the possibilities.)...as it looks like the legs missing,but the first thing an animal eats is the organs...not usually the extremities...just a thought...but weird and honestly have no idea...:o:)

[size_of_light]

1.Was UFO's reported in the vicinity day or 2 earlier.

2.Is there military bases or storage areas for nuclear waste

3.Is there any tribal legends from the native Indians covering this discrption of being?
...that way,one can wittle down the possibilities.It's a freak,that's for sure.
The damage to the womans body...could be a traffic accident or something similar,and the perp who caused it used a local legend to cover their tracks
(Don't Berate me on that one...as I don't believe it myself,just exposing all the possibilities.)...as it looks like the legs missing,but the first thing an animal eats is the organs...not usually the extremities...just a thought...but weird and honestly have no idea...:o:)

No UFOs reported or military bases -- no one knows exactly when or where the footage was taken. The first clip in post #5 has some background on the Indian legends about a local creature like this. I agree it's a strange mutilation of the body (if it's real), more like something a shark would do than any land predator I know of.

[thelyran]

No UFOs reported or military bases -- no one knows exactly when or where the footage was taken. The first clip in post #5 has some background on the Indian legends about a local creature like this. I agree it's a strange mutilation of the body (if it's real), more like something a shark would do than any land predator I know of.


well the local natives know...there's one avenue of investigation.I heard many accounts of UFO's releasing "Bigfoot" like creatures...as flore and soil gatherers...but never as mutilators of humans...a few poor cows,yes,but the wounds were cauterized

[godgoo]

I am a skeptic of this. I think it is obvious that the normal motion of this animal is bipedal, It is human. Plus we have no Idea how much ground it covered and over what time. Look at
time 00:10 - 00:11 you can see the heal of the left foot kicking out. A wild animal would not have that sort of lazy posture.

[size_of_light]

I am a skeptic of this. I think it is obvious that the normal motion of this animal is bipedal, It is human. Plus we have no Idea how much ground it covered and over what time. Look at
time 00:10 - 00:11 you can see the heal of the left foot kicking out. A wild animal would not have that sort of lazy posture.

I've broken the footage down into a sequence from the best quality version available (see the film in it's entirety, including unrelated images on the same reel here: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html )

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4547

Ears are clearly visibly in frames 4, 5, 7,10 and 11, as are a tail in frames 9 & 10.

Frame 9 removes any doubt that this is an animal and not a human being. Note how thin it's 'dog-like' left rear leg is in this still.

This thing moves like nothing I've ever seen before. After watching the clip repeatedly, it seems to me like something intelligent (the way it pauses and watches as per frame 2 seems strangely human), thickset like a bear but with the agility of a baboon and a big cat combined.

Since it obviously has a prominent tail and pointed ears, (known) bears and gorillas can both be ruled out.

I'm reluctant to admit it but - haha! - it kinda does look like a werewolf.

[thelyran]

I've broken the footage down into a sequence from the best quality version available (see the film in it's entirety, including unrelated images on the same reel here: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html )

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4547

Ears are clearly visibly in frames 4, 5, 7,10 and 11, as are a tail in frames 9 & 10.

Frame 9 removes any doubt that this is an animal and not a human being. Note how thin it's left rear leg is in this still.

This thing moves like nothing I've ever seen before. After watching the clip repeatedly, it seems to me like something intelligent (the way it pauses and watches as per frame 2 seems strangely human), thickset like a bear but with the agility of a baboon and a big cat combined.

Since it obviously has a prominent tail and pointed ears, bears and gorillas can be ruled out.

I'm reluctant to admit it but - haha! - it kinda looks like a werewolf.

Hahahaha...that's not funny:eek:...Lordzoma,reckons they're real...after what I have seen...I'm not going to doubt it,but those legends from the natives...they need to be explored deeply,regards,kind sir.

[godgoo]

I've broken the footage down into a sequence from the best quality version available (see the film in it's entirety, including unrelated images on the same reel here: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html )

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4547

Ears are clearly visibly in frames 4, 5, 7,10 and 11, as are a tail in frames 9 & 10.

Frame 9 removes any doubt that this is an animal and not a human being. Note how thin it's left rear leg is in this still.

This thing moves like nothing I've ever seen before. After watching the clip repeatedly, it seems to me like something intelligent (the way it pauses and watches as per frame 2 seems strangely human), thickset like a bear but with the agility of a baboon and a big cat combined.

Since it obviously has a prominent tail and pointed ears, bears and gorillas can be ruled out.

I'm reluctant to admit it but - haha! - it kinda looks like a werewolf.

I think this is a good hoax? Frame 6 is throwing me off, the weight goes completely over the hips for that stance, the heel sticks out, it could also be accurate to say that the animal/human has toes. this would implying that the animal is a fulltime bipedal mover. The motion is similar to that of a silver back gorilla, I know it isn't a gorilla. but the motion of a gorilla can be easy to mimic. This is why ground speed would be good to know, but we don't have enough film to plot the data.

[thelyran]

I've broken the footage down into a sequence from the best quality version available (see the film in it's entirety, including unrelated images on the same reel here: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html )

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4547

Ears are clearly visibly in frames 4, 5, 7,10 and 11, as are a tail in frames 9 & 10.

Frame 9 removes any doubt that this is an animal and not a human being. Note how thin it's left rear leg is in this still.

This thing moves like nothing I've ever seen before. After watching the clip repeatedly, it seems to me like something intelligent (the way it pauses and watches as per frame 2 seems strangely human), thickset like a bear but with the agility of a baboon and a big cat combined.

Since it obviously has a prominent tail and pointed ears, bears and gorillas can be ruled out.

I'm reluctant to admit it but - haha! - it kinda looks like a werewolf.


...I saved this pic and blew it up on desktop,picture 11 looks like a wild boar...
the type that come from europe,particulary the back and head,similar to the razorbacks we get out here....hey,that was'nt to bad a 80s film neither!:)

[size_of_light]

I think this is a good hoax? Frame 6 is throwing me off, the weight goes completely over the hips for that stance, the heel sticks out, it could also be accurate to say that the animal/human has toes. this would implying that the animal is a fulltime bipedal mover. The motion is similar to that of a silver back gorilla, I know it isn't a gorilla. but the motion of a gorilla can be easy to mimic. This is why ground speed would be good to know, but we don't have enough film to plot the data.

It does have simian-like facial features when seen in profile in a Hi-Res version of Frame 3, which I'll run next.

Meantime, this is a Hi-Res version of Frame 2 with brightness/contrast adjusted.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4548

This appearance is consistent with the end of the film when you see the animals teeth in one of the last frames:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4549

***Update ***

Error correction: The appearance of a dog, or bear-like nose here is actually caused by a thin branch extending from the tree in the foreground across the face of the creature.

For a more detailed explanation see later posts.

[godgoo]

Frame 6 is where you want to start analysing :) that is the odd one. I also know that animal could not eat two legs and an arse in one sitting. Maybe it went back?

[size_of_light]

Frame 3. This is when the animal begins to move to it's right (towards left of screen) and is seen briefly in profile. Note the gorilla-like facial features and also the powerful left hind-leg. Eyes, nostrils, prominent upper jaw and mouth are all visible. Very reminiscent of a silverback gorilla in this one.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4550

[size_of_light]

...I saved this pic and blew it up on desktop,picture 11 looks like a wild boar...
the type that come from europe,particulary the back and head,similar to the razorbacks we get out here....hey,that was'nt to bad a 80s film neither!:)

Agree. Or a stampeding buffalo. In various frames it looks like a bear, an ape, a boar, a buffalo...and then when you view the real time footage it doesn't quite look like any of them.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more the movements remind me of a cross between a primate and a rodent.

A capibara springs to mind, and the Frame 2 enhancement shows similar facial features to one, though Frame 3 is more gorilla, and neither have a set of fangs like the close up photo of the mouth in the final frames.

[size_of_light]

I think this is a good hoax? Frame 6 is throwing me off, the weight goes completely over the hips for that stance, the heel sticks out, it could also be accurate to say that the animal/human has toes. this would implying that the animal is a fulltime bipedal mover. The motion is similar to that of a silver back gorilla, I know it isn't a gorilla. but the motion of a gorilla can be easy to mimic. This is why ground speed would be good to know, but we don't have enough film to plot the data.

Good observation on Frame 6. It seems to rise onto it's two hind legs with incredibly agility and balance there. I'll analyse that one as well.

I think Frame 9 clearly eliminates the possibility that it's a human mimicking an ape (the spindly hind leg).

[runlikehell]

:eek: That thing's Crazy! at first it lt moved like a gorilla, two arms out fisrt then the back two, then it just get so agile like a big cat of some sort!

http://www.youtube.com/v/FBkTQDEcBpI

At 0:30 that thing seems to shape shift
theres also what sems like a tail! my guess F***k knows?

Did they find the lower torsu (legs) or were they never recoverd (eaten?)
Seems like bear behaiviour judgeing by the remains very strange

[thelyran]

Agree. Or a stampeding buffalo. In various frames it looks like a bear, an ape, a boar, a buffalo...and then when you view the real time footage it doesn't quite look like any of them.

EDIT: The more I think about it, the more the movements remind me of a cross between a primate and a rodent.

A capibara springs to mind, and the Frame 2 enhancement shows similar facial features to one, though Frame 3 is more gorilla, and neither have a set of fangs like the close up photo of the mouth in the final frames.


hahahahaha....:D...it's a schizophrenic shapeshifter:Ddoes'nt know what it wants to be...if it goes reptile,please let me know,love Ya Man:)

[size_of_light]

New stabilised version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMIqfD05Zs
The 'tail' evident in lower definition versions appears here to be an effect caused by sunlght reflecting off a ripple in the hide of the the heavy hind quarters. More like a bear at first glance now, though the movements still don't resemble those of a bear.

Between 0:03 and 0:05 you can now clearly see the animal raise it's head to sniff the air before stepping forward to attack. But the lighting patterns on it's back then seem to ripple and flow with an unnatural fluidity and the body shape distorts rapidly as the animal approaches in an almost surreal, gliding motion between 0:05 and 0:08.

[size_of_light]

From ghosttheory.com:

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

http://www.ghosttheory.com/crypto/gable-film-update-linda-godfrey-and-others-react/

[size_of_light]

New stabilised version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMIqfD05Zs


As the animal moves it's head to sniff the air, the pointed muzzle is seen.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4555

***Update ***

Error correction: What looked to me like the animal moving it's head to sniff the air is in fact caused by camera movement in relation to a thin branch extending from the tree in the foreground across the face of the creature.

The slow motion replay in the same clip (above) shows that.

Eliminating the details I based on that mistake, I haven't found anything to indicate that there is a pointed or muzzle-like nose at all.

[size_of_light]

Shoulders and upper torso like a gorilla, tapering back down to a narrow, rangey hind-quarters. The thigh and knee-joint look unnervingly humanoid.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4557

[size_of_light]

New stabilised version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMIqfD05Zs

As the animal moves it's head to sniff the air, the pointed muzzle is seen.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4555


***Update ***

Error correction: What looked to me like the animal moving it's head to sniff the air is in fact caused by camera movement in relation to a thin branch extending from the tree in the foreground across the face of the creature.

The slow motion replay in the same clip (above) shows that.

Eliminating the details I based on that mistake, I haven't found anything to indicate that there is a pointed or muzzle-like nose at all.

Therefore, the most accurate impression of the face I've found is the profile view from Post #18 of Frame 3 of the original sequence breakdown. Distinctly simian (but with pointed ears as visible in other frames).

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4550

[size_of_light]

I know what you're all thinking by now -- get a life! :D

But this footage is absolutely haunting me.

I think I might have studied it by now almost as many times as anyone else out there and I'm going to continue boring you with my theories...

There's a lot to comment on in the silent footage that precedes the actual cryptid sequence on the reel of film - shots of a kid playing on a snowmobile...various scenes around a homestead during a snowy winter...a person with their back to camera of inderterminate sex splitting a log of wood...someone, possibly the same person working under the hood of a pickup truck...scenes filmed from a moving vehicle with a brief glimpse of the young male cameraman caught in the rearview mirror...a large doglike animal galloping across an open area of woodlands shot through the window of the same moving vehicle - but for now I'll put all that aside for a number of reasons, primarily because impressions on whether or not these images 'feel' authentic or staged is a largely irrelevant distraction that can only cloud objective analysis of the important and remarkable scene, i.e the animal attack itself.

I find it so extraordinary when viewed in isolation that any serious attempt to
get to the bottom of this case should begin with an exhaustive analysis of that scene alone before radiating outwards to examine the other available evidence both within the film itself and beyond.

For the same reason, the recently surfaced 'Gable Film 2' that allegedly came to light independently and apparently documents a Michigan Department of Natural Resources investigation into a 'mutilated corpse' in the woods that seems to be connected to the original case, whilst fascinating in it's own right and containing many intriguing elements, is something I wont get into for now.

So, focussing in on the 'attack scene' now, after having done my small amount of research and anaylsis on it, this is what I feel certain of so far:

1. The creature is definitely not a 'man in a costume' mimicking an animal.

If that's not intuitively apparent to anyone when looking at it's movements, review Frame 9 in my earlier sequence breakdown (post #12) and appreciate how impossibly spindly the rear left leg of the animal is for it to be a human being on all fours. Backing that up is the post I added to this thread (post #24) from the guy who claimed to be from "the group Steve Cook originally brought the Gable footage to for argument and analysis". In it he stated:

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”.

Finally on this point, in post #6, I mentioned that in a Cryptomundo article, Loren Coleman seemed to have concluded the footage was a hoax because some people had apparently noticed a human foot on the animal in a couple of frames.

I've now found what he was referring to, and a link to this suggestion - not argument (as implied by Coleman) - can be found here:

http://www.loadedparanormal.com/viewtopic.php?p=7443

This is nothing more than a rather silly interpretation of Frame 6 in my sequence breakdown (post #12) and is merely one of the many split-second morphing anomalies the creature goes through. When viewed in context with the other frames in that breakdown (particularly Frame 9) it becomes instantly obvious that it's impossible for the leg to be that of a 'man in a costume' one moment, and then no thicker than a greyhound's hind leg the next, without something anomalous or inexplicable happening that completely cancels out that mundane explanation anyway.

2. The creature doesn't show any detectable canine characteristics, apart from short, sharp, prominent ears

Of all the possible contenders amongst known species of animals, a dog, a wolf or any other type of canine is the least likely in terms of both movement and appearance.

As per my earlier update, I mistakenly interpreted the movement of a branch in front of the creatures face for a pointed nose or muzzle in a sniffing action, however once that error has been removed, nothing in any of the still images I've examined suggests anything similar to a canine profile, and the only trait the two have in common seems to be a pair of short, sharp, prominent ears, visible in several of the still frames and also when viewed in real time.

3. The animal doesn't have any discernible tail.

Another initial error I made, corrected and explained in post #23.

4. The animal does not belong to any known species of bear or primate.

My feelings on this are best summed up in the post from the guy in the Steve Cook analysis group I mentioned earlier (post #24).

5. The creature is not a deer, big cat, or any other known species of animal that is readily apparent.

As above.

6. The creature most resembles a large, unknown primate (but with prominent, pointed ears).

Below is a crude composite (from posts #18 and #26) that best represents the appearance of the animal as far as I can tell. The ears aren't particularly noticeable here, though it does tend to convey the look of certain types of gibbons with similar 'tufts' of hair extending from the sides of the head.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=4559

It's worth emphasising again however, that in other stills, these appendages do look much more like solid, pointed ears.

7. This is the key observation I've made, and from looking at the other research into the footage, the one thing that I think has been almost entirely overlooked:

Not only does the creature seem to undergo a series of fluid, split-second body-morphs during the 4 seconds of visible movement (between 0:05 and 0:09), but it's also out-of-time with it's environment for that entire duration.

If you haven't already fully realised what I mean by that, it's a difficult point to understand unless you view the first 8 seconds of the following clip, multiple times, focussing alternately on the minute detail and the overall 'sense' or impression of what you're seeing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMIqfD05Zs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidicke.com%2Fforum%2Fshow thread.php%3Ft%3D73872%26page%3D3&feature=player_embedded

The agility of the creature is physically impossible when viewed intuitively, taking into account it's size, weight and the positioning of it's limbs when it pivots and twists.

In addition, multiple viewings reveal quite starkly that it's moving too slow and almost floating, particularly between 0:07 - 0:08.

Before anyone disputes that point, recommend jumping between 0:01 and 0:08 numerous times and I promise you that 'out of time' sensation will become very clear.

What does that mean?

I can only think of two explanations:

a) The creature has been artificially added to the background footage through some sort of sophisticated CGI that I've never seen before. According to post #24, the guy in the analysis group claimed there was no detectable evidence of image manipulation of any kind and I personally haven't been able to detect a single misplaced pixel in any of the still frame images I've analysed. This guy also claimed the film had been analysed by Kodak and was in fact from the 70s and had suffered a good deal of deterioration, though I haven't been able to verify that claim from any separate sources as of yet.

The movements, the morphing and the out-of-time 'floating effect', do, however, seem vaguely reminiscent of rotoscoping when I look at it sometimes, and although I consider it extremely improbable, I wont discount the possibility that someone with extraordinary technical skills and creative genius has somehow managed to take footage of a rampaging primate and seamlessly blend it into the background shot to create a hoax.

As a comparison, here's a clip of a gorilla charging:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5jZhxm77Yc&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.loadedparanormal.com%2Fviewt opic.php%3Fp%3D7443&feature=player_embedded

There are basic similarities there, but also a lot of discrepancies between the above actions and those in the Gable film.

I don't consider myself ever fooled by CGI into actually believing it's indistinguishable from reality though; the eyes might temporarily be impressed but the brain always knows the difference. The nearest thing I could liken the sensation I get when watching this creature move is to that of watching the movements of characters in Fantasia, which is why the rotoscoping effect came to mind.

b) The creature is genuine and has some sort of ethereal quality or ability that allows it to move in such a fluid, floating way that doesn't quite sync with it's apparent size and weight, it's environment or the camera movements.

More investigation needed.

EDIT:

While the stablised footage...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INMIqfD05Zs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidicke.com%2Fforum%2Fshow thread.php%3Ft%3D73872%26page%3D3&feature=player_embedded

...reveals some excellent detail not seen in other versions, it appears to have compressed the film and lost some frames which gives the creatures movements a much more unnatural 'floating' appearance than in the restored (definitive) version of the original available at: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html

In this, the creature looks much more organic to me and the 'floating, out-of-time' effect, and the split-second morphs more subtle and profound. Again, only multiple viewings can bring this effect out.

[supertzar]

I am inclined to think it is a bear. They are more agile than you think. Their anaerobic strength is incredible, which translates to being very quick in short bursts. I remember a nature show where a bear picked a salmon out of a stream and it appeared to teleport a short distance because it moved faster than the frames of the film could capture it

[size_of_light]

I am inclined to think it is a bear. They are more agile than you think. Their anaerobic strength is incredible, which translates to being very quick in short bursts. I remember a nature show where a bear picked a salmon out of a stream and it appeared to teleport a short distance because it moved faster than the frames of the film could capture it

I've seen similar. Catching a salmon so quick that the paw is a blur because the camera can't catch it.

But I'd suggest the evidence is strongly against it being a bear (at least any known species) for all the reasons I outlined above.

[truth finder]

Yes veritas, 'skinwalker vibe' for sure.

I'm amazed by this footage. Never seen anything like it. I've read a bit about the case now and despite some opinions floating around that it's a hoax, there's no actual evidence for that other than the 'too good to be true' angle, which is ridiculous. Even Loren Coleman at Crytpomundo seems to have taken this approach to the film, which I find frustrating and baffling, since anyone with any sense of how animals really move as opposed to 'a man in a dogsuit' can immediately see that it's some sort of animal and not a man.

Slow motion enhancements show a long catlike tail at one point and two long ears which eliminates both gorillas and bears as the possible culprits.

I'd also challenge the best CGI artists in the world to re-produce anything that even remotely matches the sense of realism and authenticity of this footage.

Here's a brief summary of the story of how this film came to light, and some additional background, from Cryptomundo:

The “Gable film” is an edited 8mm film that has been raising a lot of questions and theories for the last few years. Many have declared this to be an elaborate hoax created by someone wanting to capitalize on the “Michigan Dogman” stories. The film itself is owned by MindStage Productions and can be seen online in a very edited and low quality version. It shows what many have said to be the actual cryptid creature lurking around the Wisconsin and adjacent states. Many researchers have claimed that this is just a hoax created by a radio DJ by the name of Steve Cook. The same person who helped create a fictional story of the “Michigan Dogman” as an April Fool’s joke, stated that he had acquired an old 8mm film with the images of a strange beast that attacks the camera man. He stated that the film was found in an estate sale in the lower peninsula of Michigan.

The 8mm reel did not have any detailed information about who or where the film was shot. The only information known was the inscription “Gable Case #MPO41177-1” that was on the film canister.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/gable09/

Here's the footage with some info on the legend of this creature:

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

A short clip with an enhancement that clearly shows the long tail and also suggests some unusual 'shapeshifting' could be going on as it approaches the camera:

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

Finally, the background behind "The Gable Film Part 2", a very graphic film showing the mutilated remains of a man in a wooded area that matches the scenery in the original Gable footage:

I was at my little brother’s house Friday June 10th and my sister-in-law was watching Fox News. (She’s madly in lust with that Sean Hannity guy). A short segment came on about “the Beast of Bray Road”. Hannity then played a clip from a film named…”The Gable Film”.

Sirens went off in my head.

Our only uncle was a film nut in college, back in the seventies. He was always making home movies and beer commercials. He was even hired, (not for pay), to help the Michigan Department of Natural Resources investigate and document a bear attack, just north of Bellaire. (Our Grandmother worked in the Antrim County Courthouse,…. she had a hand in getting him the gig). The victim’s name was Aaron GABLE.

…..GABLE!!!

My mother tells us that after filming the attack scene, our Uncle John was so distraught that he packed up his stuff and moved to Florida, two weeks later!. Mom says his behavior was becoming very psychotic, he couldn’t sleep at night and he kept going on about how “bears have FIVE toes,….. dogs have four”!. Just a week after he left, a DNR officer hand-delivered the film that Uncle John made to my Mother’s house. It’s been in a box in the basement ever since.

Now, I seem to recall that these films usually lasted about five minutes or so, but the film we have is only about a minute long… and the end of it was obviously torn off, not cut clean. I wonder just how much is missing? We almost threw this film away just a couple of years ago, but I wound up buying a vintage projector on eBay, just to see what was on this film. (Boy, was I suprised). NOW,….. I find that there’s this “Gable” film out there?

I wonder if these two films are related. I’ll see if I can get it in better resolution, other than with Wifey’s camera-phone. (It might be expensive,….. but I’m sure it’ll be worth it).

One thing’s for certain, whatever it was on that clip that they played on Fox News,….. it sure didn’t look like no Bear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvFYnkyY5tU

Those trail cam of the creature sought of looks like a bobcat, and watching the video again i noticed when it first charges it looks like a bull or a buffolo and as it gets closer it realy does look like a warewolf.

[size_of_light]

Those trail cam of the creature sought of looks like a bobcat, and watching the video again i noticed when it first charges it looks like a bull or a buffolo and as it gets closer it realy does look like a warewolf.

Totally agree.

By the way -- thanks for ruining my life with this thread! :mad: :p ;)

[truth finder]

Nobody will ever convince me there's a guy in a suit in that footage. It's physically and intuitively impossible for a human to move like that and anyone who thinks otherwise clearly has limited experience observing and understanding the natural movements of animals.

If this does all turn out to be a hoax now, I'll look like a complete fool for saying that, but what the hell. :p



I'm the same you cant just dismiss the footage as a hoax. Maybe they should do a monster Quest there....

[truth finder]

Totally agree.

By the way -- thanks for ruining my life with this thread! :mad: :p ;)


Lol it gave you something to do...lol:D

[size_of_light]

Lol it gave you something to do...lol:D

I'm embarrassed to admit you're right. :o

Awesome footage, I'd never seen it before. Thanks for posting it. :)

[metacomet]

Hmm... I don't want to touch this one.

I would hate to wave the skeptic flag when I rarely do ... but I want to wave it here :o .

I am kind of baffled that people are saying no human could move like this.

If you want to talk about the patterson bigfoot footage in the same light - many humans can mimic the patterson bigfoot gate. But few can pull it off exactly. Then there is the fact that the patty bigfoot is covered in visible muscle and skin-tight hair. The argument for 'it's a costume' was only ever a way for people to relieve themself of considering that Bigfeet are real.

In this instance however, there isn't enough detail, the thing very well could be a costume, and many people can run on all fours like that.

It could be like many things, authentic and outstanding footage which is just a little short of the mark - a shame.

[metacomet]

I am inclined to think it is a bear.

I am definitely more inclined to think it is a bear than a man in a suit as well.

It's hard to make out musculature but there is definite bulk to the animal (if it is that). The thickness and stoutness of the limbs and the big posterior make me think bear *shrug*.

And yes, bears are far more agile than humans. Think dog but much bigger.

[biblegirl]

Thank you everyone for the info on this thread, I've watched the video many times :D.

It sounded like Cryptomundo was just throwing us a bone, and were not all that interested in the authenticity, but obviously their lack of interest is not good enough evidence that the video is a hoax. :p

After watching the vid, the feeling I got of what this creature is similar to, was not a bear or a dog or a gorilla, but more like a wingless gargoyle:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5382/wingedgargoylea01b.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/wingedgargoylea01b.jpg/)
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7306/gargoylepenutilityholde.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/gargoylepenutilityholde.jpg/) http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7448/gargoyleovershelf.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/gargoyleovershelf.jpg/)

The toes on the first image seem to be dogman-ish, although I think most gargoyles are depicted with 5 fingers/toes. The way it looked on all fours just reminded me of this type of creature. In the mysterious planet vid, they seemed to report it as more of a half man half wolf type creature. And about the natives, here is a quote from the mysterious planet vid:

The Ottawa and Chippewa tribes described strange shapeshifting wolf like creatures they call Wendigo.

So if this is true, then the natives are aware of a shapeshifting werewolf type. It did appear to float more than run naturally at some points. I think I have seen this sort of movement by creatures on films like Tomb Raider and such, where the monsters move in this sort of creepy way, obviously from CGI, which this vid is not.

My questions: Is there a place to view the rest of the tape? How long did the tape run after the camcorder fell to the ground? Why is there no sound? Also is the camera zoomed in or was the cameraman really that close to this creature? If so, I would wonder why he was out there and managed to get so much footage of it standing there and charging him before he started to run. I wouldn't rule it out if he did though, since I have done some crazy things to capture some things on film, and I'm sure I could do much worse!

I am a little confused, when the mysterious planet vid said it caught a shot of the camera man in the truck mirror: was that in the same footage that is on the vid repeated in this thread? Or from another segment of the tape?

I don't know how accurate a gauge this is :o, but intuitively when I first watched the footage, I could feel fear from the cameraman, and also the feeling that the creature was real and agressive. So not great evidence, but something I do take into account when viewing these kinds of videos and photos. :)

[size_of_light]

Hmm... I don't want to touch this one.

I would hate to wave the skeptic flag when I rarely do ... but I want to wave it here :o .

I am kind of baffled that people are saying no human could move like this.

If you want to talk about the patterson bigfoot footage in the same light - many humans can mimic the patterson bigfoot gate. But few can pull it off exactly. Then there is the fact that the patty bigfoot is covered in visible muscle and skin-tight hair. The argument for 'it's a costume' was only ever a way for people to relieve themself of considering that Bigfeet are real.

In this instance however, there isn't enough detail, the thing very well could be a costume, and many people can run on all fours like that.

It could be like many things, authentic and outstanding footage which is just a little short of the mark - a shame.

I love you but you're absolutely mad here.

Review the evidence.

And the Patterson Bigfoot film is not a hoax.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=4560

I've noticed that a lot of people on this forum have an overwhelming tendency to make all sorts of extravagant and ridiculous claims about the nature of reality that they can't actually prove to anyone else via any kind of evidence or simple logic, and yet at the same time they're perfectly content to practice the disturbing art of wilful and stubborn ignorance when it comes to looking into and examining the great evidence for profound things that is truly out there.

[metacomet]

I love you but you're absolutely mad here.

Review the evidence.


I did :o posted right after that I am more enclined to believe it's a bear by miles now than a person in a suit.

And the Patterson Bigfoot film is not a hoax.

Definitely not.

[size_of_light]

Thank you everyone for the info on this thread, I've watched the video many times :D.

It sounded like Cryptomundo was just throwing us a bone, and were not all that interested in the authenticity, but obviously their lack of interest is not good enough evidence that the video is a hoax. :p

After watching the vid, the feeling I got of what this creature is similar to, was not a bear or a dog or a gorilla, but more like a wingless gargoyle:

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/5382/wingedgargoylea01b.jpg (http://img507.imageshack.us/i/wingedgargoylea01b.jpg/)
http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/7306/gargoylepenutilityholde.jpg (http://img254.imageshack.us/i/gargoylepenutilityholde.jpg/) http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7448/gargoyleovershelf.jpg (http://img257.imageshack.us/i/gargoyleovershelf.jpg/)

The toes on the first image seem to be dogman-ish, although I think most gargoyles are depicted with 5 fingers/toes. The way it looked on all fours just reminded me of this type of creature. In the mysterious planet vid, they seemed to report it as more of a half man half wolf type creature. And about the natives, here is a quote from the mysterious planet vid:



So if this is true, then the natives are aware of a shapeshifting werewolf type. It did appear to float more than run naturally at some points. I think I have seen this sort of movement by creatures on films like Tomb Raider and such, where the monsters move in this sort of creepy way, obviously from CGI, which this vid is not.

My questions: Is there a place to view the rest of the tape? How long did the tape run after the camcorder fell to the ground? Why is there no sound? Also is the camera zoomed in or was the cameraman really that close to this creature? If so, I would wonder why he was out there and managed to get so much footage of it standing there and charging him before he started to run. I wouldn't rule it out if he did though, since I have done some crazy things to capture some things on film, and I'm sure I could do much worse!

I am a little confused, when the mysterious planet vid said it caught a shot of the camera man in the truck mirror: was that in the same footage that is on the vid repeated in this thread? Or from another segment of the tape?

I don't know how accurate a gauge this is :o, but intuitively when I first watched the footage, I could feel fear from the cameraman, and also the feeling that the creature was real and agressive. So not great evidence, but something I do take into account when viewing these kinds of videos and photos. :)

You've blown me away there bg, because I hadn't considered the movements of some sort of bird or gargoyle, but when you mentioned it I instantly felt that it resonated, at least in part.

Without going into lengthy detail, the two major reservations I have about the 'attack scene' are the teeth that attack the camera at the end and the fact that the camera shuts off immediately after it falls to the ground. Both these events come very close together though, and with the jerky camera movement and the interference in the image there is the potential there for this to have been tacked on to embellish the original creature footage.

I'm still undecided about it and to be honest haven't really given it that much thought or consideration. Both of these things could still be perfectly legitimate aspects of the original scene.

Here's the full film, btw, hope you enjoy and let us know what you think and what you pick up:

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html

[supertzar]

On the subject of Patty, have you guys seen the weird heel in the film? I have tended to believe it is legit, but this gives me greater doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w&feature=fvw

[size_of_light]

I did :o posted right after that I am more enclined to believe it's a bear by miles now than a person in a suit.


Definitely not.

Now you're just messing with my head! :p

[forestgrump]

So how about this supposed photograph from the Michigan Dogman site (from this encounter: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encTemple.html)?

Does anyone think it looks vaguely similar to the animal in the film? If you zoom in a bit on the back legs they look similar as do the ears although it looks as if this creature has a tail. And what of the authenticity of the photograph itself? I'd be inclined to dismiss it purely because of the subject matter but I'd be interested to hear the opinion of someone who's more au fait with digital trickery than I am.

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu79/Spinceria/barn-dogman.png

[forestgrump]

This is another interesting pic from the same site. I don't suppose its a bear track?

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/Big_Paw.jpg

[size_of_light]

Where is he?

I've seen this photo when I was researching the other stuff, with an overlay showing how the silhouette was identical to the shape of one of the creatures from the Chronicles of Narnia film poster or something, but I'll still be damned if I can see anything in that picture at all.

[godgoo]

I think the mechanics are there to suggest that it may be a human, frame 6, is a dead give away if you ask me. In frame 6 You can clearly see that the foot is round at the toe, suggesting rounded footwear. An animal would not poke it's heal out like that, the toes would seperate between the pads and the knee would adjust, and the animal would strafe.

The correction made for balance in frame 6 is due the animal being bipedal, simply not that use to be on all fours. Also in frame six the heel kicks out to allow the knees to bunch together to, the weight goes over the hips and the weight goes almost completely on one foot. An animal wouldn't strafe like that. It's heel would be flat to the floor at all times if it had claws, and naked toes. Obviously the heel kicking out is lack of traction. Toes wrapped up. Who ever does this next time should do it barefoot.

[forestgrump]

Its about halway between the right hand side of the end of the drive and the shed. I'll try and mark it on the image soon but my pc is giving me hassles at the moment.

[size_of_light]

I think the mechanics are there to suggest that it may be a human, frame 6, is a dead give away if you ask me. In frame 6 You can clearly see that the foot is round at the toe, suggesting rounded footwear. An animal would not poke it's heal out like that, the toes would seperate between the pads and the knee would adjust, and the animal would strafe.

The correction made for balance in frame 6 is due the animal being bipedal, simply not that use to be on all fours. Also in frame six the heel kicks out to allow the knees to bunch together to, the weight goes over the hips and the weight goes almost completely on one foot. An animal wouldn't strafe like that. It's heel would be flat to the floor at all times if it had claws, and naked toes. Obviously the heel kicking out is lack of traction. Toes wrapped up. Who ever does this next time should do it barefoot.

lol.

[biblegirl]

Its about halway between the right hand side of the end of the drive and the shed. I'll try and mark it on the image soon but my pc is giving me hassles at the moment.

is it like 15 ft tall?!

[biblegirl]

Here's the full film, btw, hope you enjoy and let us know what you think and what you pick up:

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_gable.html

Thank you for that :).

Okay, nobody laugh now :p i will tell you my impressions from the full video, obviously it is just speculation on my part, but I am curious if anyone else picked up on this...it feels like the cameraman was well aware of this creature before he caught the last bit of footage, and i think he saw it a few times during the other shots and tried to film it but he was too late. At last he was able to capture it on film, but he was not expecting it to charge him...when it did he made a run for it, the brief part where the video kind of goes static is part of the original video, and was interference from the contact.

I have experienced similar interference on cameras when dealing with interdimensional stuff (which i believe this is) over vortex points or energy lines....so....yeah :o

this post may only be up for a limited time as i hate to be wrong :p

[metacomet]

this post may only be up for a limited time as i hate to be wrong :p

*clicks quote button immediately*

Mwahaha I have put your post in stone forever now.

the brief part where the video kind of goes static is part of the original video, and was interference from the contact.


Well, I have considered that some animals are other-dimensional in origin... I think you have a thread on that too?

In my origins of bigfoot thread http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=68865

I am open to the idea of bigfoot being not of this reality entirely. Other stories seem to go along with this theory.

If this is another unknown animal altogether, it could go alongside Bigfoot in that department.

I have also read of people having batteries die around ghost hauntings and other things I believe are otherdimensional. If this animal were from some place else or guarding an energy area like Bigfeet could be... all sorts of things will enter this discussion.

[hagbard_celine]

Definitely not a bear, its movements are simply too agile. Bears, even small ones, have a very distinctive lumbering gait.

At one point as it is heading towards the camera, it pushes off the ground with its back legs at speed (which is very clear in the slo-mo footage), and I've never seen a bear do that - its far more reminiscent of how a dog runs. And there's something about it that seems to lend an air of intelligence to the way its running towards the camera - freaky as hell.

Anyone else think this whole thing has a skinwalker vibe to it?

Skinwalker?:confused: Then it's what Jonathan Downes would call a "zooform phenomenon".

It's very scarey. Even without a soundtrack I can feel the fear in the cameraman as the beast runs towards him/her.:eek: It doesn't love like a man dressed in a suit. Creepy!:eek:

[size_of_light]

Thank you for that :).

Okay, nobody laugh now :p i will tell you my impressions from the full video, obviously it is just speculation on my part, but I am curious if anyone else picked up on this...it feels like the cameraman was well aware of this creature before he caught the last bit of footage, and i think he saw it a few times during the other shots and tried to film it but he was too late. At last he was able to capture it on film, but he was not expecting it to charge him...when it did he made a run for it, the brief part where the video kind of goes static is part of the original video, and was interference from the contact.

I have experienced similar interference on cameras when dealing with interdimensional stuff (which i believe this is) over vortex points or energy lines....so....yeah :o

this post may only be up for a limited time as i hate to be wrong :p

You have to be right. Whoever filmed it had to have been stalking this thing from the roadside for a distance or they wouldn't have recorded several different shots in the woods, and wouldn't have kept going unless they knew it wasn't far ahead.

I think the cameraman must have sighted it sitting stationary, then moved up and started filming the last scene. Maybe when this 'thing' realised it was being tracked it lured the cameraman to a certain point by seeming to be submissive and in retreat, and then turned around and went bang!

Something interesting is that in the full film you saw, the cameraman is briefly seen in the rear view mirror of the vehicle...it's a young boy, possibly the one seen earlier on the snowmobile.

That means an adult had to be driving the vehicle.

In the 'Gable Film 2' footage, the mutilated corpse matches the woman (?) seen splitting wood in this original film.

So did both mother and son track the creature into the woods, with the son filming?

What happened to the son? Was his corpse found too?

Given that he was probably filming when the attack took place, I'd suggest he didn't make it out alive either.

[rynath]

Encounters with Strange Creatures
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/07/23

Date:
07-23-09

Host:
George Noory

Guests:
Linda Godfrey

Author, artist and researcher of the strange, Linda Godfrey will discuss her most recent work on true encounters with beast-men, upright canines, & unknown flying creatures, as well as mythical creatures that modern technology may soon be able to create by combining disparate species.

Stream for free here: http://www.am1500.com/listen.shtml
It begins in about 2 hours.

Maybe the Beast of Bray Road from Wisconsin and this Michigan Dogman share something in common? Maybe they're the same creature or same type of creature? That vid still freaks me out.

[size_of_light]

Stream for free here: http://www.am1500.com/listen.shtml
It begins in about 2 hours.

Maybe the Beast of Bray Road from Wisconsin and this Michigan Dogman share something in common? Maybe they're the same creature or same type of creature? That vid still freaks me out.

Thanks for the link rynath but I missed the show.

Any good info there?

[rynath]

Thanks for the link rynath but I missed the show.

Any good info there?

You can read her blog on the topic here, which sums up what what covered:
http://blogs.myspace.com/lindagodfrey

She doesn't want to categorize it because she feels it's still an unknown:

I would be inclined to agree with some posters at Cryptozoology.com that it is an old, thin or mangy black bear, but as you can see in a clip someone there contributed of a bluffing bear attack, that big bear head is easily identifiable and always there leading the charge. The head of the Gable film creature is much smaller in comparison to the body. I think the animal is still not identifiable. So no matter what it is, it still is not demonstrably a Dogman, Manwolf, or anything else.

[runlikehell]

That footage is crazy, like size this has grabed me by the bobo!

The thing in the footage shows about three diffrent animal characteristics? very strange? At one point it seems like it can move each of it's four legs independintly! Very, Very, Strange!

To be honest it's doing my head in! i wish it was a proven fake so my mind would rest on the subject! but that's the easy way out, An option i dont use very much in life :D

Gonna have to watch that footage another couple hundred times! :( intresting point raised biblegirl! the plot thickens :confused:

[truth finder]

On the subject of Patty, have you guys seen the weird heel in the film? I have tended to believe it is legit, but this gives me greater doubt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NoTZ_OUd5w&feature=fvw


I must be a fool cause i still believe......

[biblegirl]

I must be a fool cause i still believe......

lol! same here! maybe deep down inside they do too :p

[forestgrump]

Where is he?

I've seen this photo when I was researching the other stuff, with an overlay showing how the silhouette was identical to the shape of one of the creatures from the Chronicles of Narnia film poster or something, but I'll still be damned if I can see anything in that picture at all.
I've ringed him in red on the original photo now.

is it like 15 ft tall?!
I don't think so. That building is a chicken/sheep shed so probably not full size. Judging by the height of the lamp post, I'd think probably about seven or eight feet?

[foobar]

A person in a suit could move like that, although they'd need to be reasonably atheletic and they'd need to lengthen the arm by prosthesis to overcome the 'arse in air' problem to allowe them move more like a great ape, which is exactly what I've seen a professional do for a BBC documentary about hominid ancestors that was made roughly 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean it is a person in a suit, but it certainly could be.

[size_of_light]

A person in a suit could move like that, although they'd need to be reasonably atheletic and they'd need to lengthen the arm by prosthesis to overcome the 'arse in air' problem to allowe them move more like a great ape, which is exactly what I've seen a professional do for a BBC documentary about hominid ancestors that was made roughly 10 years ago.

That doesn't mean it is a person in a suit, but it certainly could be.

With respect, it certainly isn't a person in a suit.

It's an animal.

I've convinced myself that I know what it is now.

I'm doing the Photoshop stuff for the image enhancements and the comparisons and digging up all the best references and info I can find to try to back up my case. Might take another day or two.

In the meantime - to you and anyone else reading - for a bit of fun, drop all of your pre-conceived ideas and programming about what's possible and what's not in those images, have a look at the footage a few million more times, and make a suggestion about what you feel we're really looking at based only on your own intuition and your own innate survival instinct.

I think there's something within us that we can tap into that allows us to instantly access a vast subconscious library of animal shapes, forms, movements and behaviours from our deep, dark collective primal past in order to accurately identify whatever creature is immediately at hand and quickly assess the threat level to make a decision.

We've forgotten that it's there but it's a muscle in us we can remember and find and start pumping again at any time.

Be alive! :p

Not like there's any pressure or anything....

Fuuuuuck!!! Run!!!!!! :eek:

[paradise_1000]

:eek:

That has scared the shit out of me

my mind is telling me that is a Bear as they can move very quickly

But it sure does look like a werewolf :eek:

wtf

[liquidswords]

Pretty creepy footage. I was inclined to think 'guy in suit' for the first half second or so of movement, but after that it seems to have the motion of a genuine four legged creature, moving like a leopard or tiger etc.

Weird stuff for sure!

[brainfreeze]

Pretty creepy footage. I was inclined to think 'guy in suit' for the first half second or so of movement, but after that it seems to have the motion of a genuine four legged creature, moving like a leopard or tiger etc.

Weird stuff for sure!

When it takes off its shoulders seem to roll like a big cats does.

[branko]

Thank you for that :).

Okay, nobody laugh now :p i will tell you my impressions from the full video, obviously it is just speculation on my part, but I am curious if anyone else picked up on this...it feels like the cameraman was well aware of this creature before he caught the last bit of footage, and i think he saw it a few times during the other shots and tried to film it but he was too late. At last he was able to capture it on film, but he was not expecting it to charge him...when it did he made a run for it, the brief part where the video kind of goes static is part of the original video, and was interference from the contact.

I have experienced similar interference on cameras when dealing with interdimensional stuff (which i believe this is) over vortex points or energy lines....so....yeah :o

this post may only be up for a limited time as i hate to be wrong :p


You are right.I think you can see creature early on film, not youst at the end.

[size_of_light]

:eek:

That has scared the shit out of me

my mind is telling me that is a Bear as they can move very quickly

But it sure does look like a werewolf :eek:

wtf

Pretty creepy footage. I was inclined to think 'guy in suit' for the first half second or so of movement, but after that it seems to have the motion of a genuine four legged creature, moving like a leopard or tiger etc.

Weird stuff for sure!

When it takes off its shoulders seem to roll like a big cats does.

I'm going to post all the new image analysis I've done over the last few days soon and because of what it reveals I think it's worthy of it's own thread.

I'll link to it from this thread also, so the comments and feedback can keep rolling in here.

For now (because I'm sadistic and I love it :p ) I'm going to be deliberately cryptic and try to scare the hell out of you even more. :D

I've been examining the footage and the background case in detail and to date I haven't found a single shred of evidence to suggest it's any kind of hoax at all.

(By the way, I'm rapidly realising that the 'field' of Cryptozoology is a total joke and coming to suspect that the true purpose of a lot of these types of websites is to downplay genuinely anomalous footage when it surfaces and dampen public interest in those cases by quickly implying or outright labelling them as hoaxes. In this case it's clear that they've based those suspicions and assumptions on either the tiniest, laughably flimsy piece of so-called evidence that vanishes under the most cursory examination, or they've inexplicably denounced it as a hoax based on no evidence whatsoever apart from the 'too good to be true' vibe. None of these sites seem to have done any serious, basic image analysis of the footage in question, which is inexcusable when you appreciate that it doesn't require any technical skill or expertise whatsoever other than the ability to tweak a few knobs on Photoshop. Something is going on in this field, and I suspect it's got a bit to do with 'gatekeeping'.)

Hopefully everyone familiar with this case has also seen the recently surfaced 'Gable Film 2' clip on youtube showing the mutilated corpse that appears to tie in with the original footage, and is aware of the background story of how that came to light...

From what I've found so far, there's some compelling evidence to suggest that this film is also legitimate, but anyway, as an intriguing update, someone has just posted a clip on youtube videoing an email communication they received from 'QuinlanOUR12', the person responsible for releasing the second film.

Below is a link, but here is the transcript of the message in the email, taken off the youtube clip:

I’m sorry I haven’t answered any emails, I’ve been…unavoidably detained.
Let me just say that I can’t be sure Johnny wasn’t a big practical joker, he left Michigan before I really had a chance to know him. I didn’t shoot this film, I wish I could tell you with absolute certainty what this film is,……but Denouncing Negative Reactions Can Often Villify Every Rational Uniform Position, so I can only say that this looks like just a matter of individual interpretation.
…..I hope you understand.
I never meant to mislead anyone, or do anything illegal…..I just found this all very interesting, and wanted to share.
That’s all.

Tell the troops I said good-bye.
(QuinlanOUR12).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJOk19CRXjU

As one of the users pointed out in the comments section under the clip:

The first letter of each word in the statement: Denouncing Negative Reactions Can Often Villify Every Rational Uniform Position spells out:

DNR COVERUP.

DNR = Department of Natural Resources?

I'll leave you for now with these quotes made in relation to the original film:

"...the flicker, graining, fading and saturation are consistent with Kodakchrome technology of the 1970s."
- Terry Pressman
Film Technologies Division
Eastman Kodak Laboratory 1969 - 81

"My analysis produces two tangible conclusions. One, this film shows a genuine act of aggression. Two, it scares the hell out of me."
- Lt. Comdr. Andrew Easling, USN (ret.)

Enjoy your next bushwalk in the Wisconsin backwoods and don't forget to pack the bazooka. ;) :p

[acidjazz]

kinda reminds me of this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45xj38z4pI

[foobar]

With respect, it certainly isn't a person in a suit.

It's an animal.

You don't know that for sure, because you weren't there. It certainly could be a person in a suit.


I've convinced myself that I know what it is now.

I'm doing the Photoshop stuff for the image enhancements and the comparisons and digging up all the best references and info I can find to try to back up my case. Might take another day or two.

In the meantime - to you and anyone else reading - for a bit of fun, drop all of your pre-conceived ideas and programming about what's possible and what's not in those images, have a look at the footage a few million more times, and make a suggestion about what you feel we're really looking at based only on your own intuition and your own innate survival instinct.

I think there's something within us that we can tap into that allows us to instantly access a vast subconscious library of animal shapes, forms, movements and behaviours from our deep, dark collective primal past in order to accurately identify whatever creature is immediately at hand and quickly assess the threat level to make a decision.

We've forgotten that it's there but it's a muscle in us we can remember and find and start pumping again at any time.


So you've decided based on a bit of video that 'guy in a suit' is impossible, but you want people to 'open their minds' ?

Open your mind. Accept that exciting science fiction scenarios aren't the only explanation for every unusual thing you see.

[truth finder]

kinda reminds me of this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y45xj38z4pI

Family guy....lol always puts a smile on my face

[size_of_light]

You don't know that for sure, because you weren't there. It certainly could be a person in a suit.



So you've decided based on a bit of video that 'guy in a suit' is impossible, but you want people to 'open their minds' ?

Open your mind. Accept that exciting science fiction scenarios aren't the only explanation for every unusual thing you see.

It's not a person in a suit.

[veritasvoice]

Gave myself some time to rest and come back to this.

Before it moves and just at the start of its run, its posture and ambling gait is VERY much like a great ape, then it starts to sprint like a cat or a greyhound.

Any ideas, size_of_light?

No way is that a person in a suit. I've seen reasonably athletic people do their very best to run on all fours, and I simply don't believe a human being could move like that.

My second thought (after skinwalker) is a transgenic species.

[size_of_light]

Gave myself some time to rest and come back to this.

Before it moves and just at the start of its run, its posture and ambling gait is VERY much like a great ape, then it starts to sprint like a cat or a greyhound.

Any ideas, size_of_light?

No way is that a person in a suit. I've seen reasonably athletic people do their very best to run on all fours, and I simply don't believe a human being could move like that.

My second thought (after skinwalker) is a transgenic species.

I agree - amazingly - it looks like a lot of different animals at different split-second moments.

If it was somethng any of us were familiar with, we wouldn't have this much trouble identifying it.

I think it's awesome the way it moves to it's right and then turns quickly so it can kick off hard with it's back legs and gain speed fast to run the cameraman down.

It must have incredibly powerful back legs despite their relatively short length, to do that.

Some of the new still frames I'll post when compared to the live footage will give an even better appreciation of that.

The 'man in a suit' defence is beyond dead.

Even the skeptical 'researchers' gave that embarrassing argument up long ago.

[runlikehell]

I agree - amazingly - it looks like a lot of different animals at different split-second moments.

If it was somethng any of us were familiar with, we wouldn't have this much trouble identifying it.

Totaly agree! it look's like somthing from "Nightmare Hall"

Dose anyone know of theres any Military bases, labs, ect, present around those parts?

It wouldent surprise me!


It's one of two things

1. A good Fake

Or

2. Some vicious F***en animal

Theres ony two things i know that can move all limbs independently! that lives on the land an ape and a man (and i doubt very much it's a man)

[veritasvoice]

I agree - amazingly - it looks like a lot of different animals at different split-second moments.

If it was somethng any of us were familiar with, we wouldn't have this much trouble identifying it.

I think it's awesome the way it moves to it's right and then turns quickly so it can kick off hard with it's back legs and gain speed fast to run the cameraman down.

It must have incredibly powerful back legs despite their relatively short length, to do that.

Some of the new still frames I'll post when compared to the live footage will give an even better appreciation of that.

The 'man in a suit' defence is beyond dead.

Even the skeptical 'researchers' gave that embarrassing argument up long ago.

Stationary, it looks a lot like a great ape, and to begin with, as it moves from left to right in frame, you can make out that its back legs are very solid and upright.

The posture is very close to this:

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060219/060219_CinGorilla_vmed.widec.jpg

Then as it starts to move and turns from left to right heading towards the camera, the form blurs (for a very brief moment, it looks like a bear), and as it kicks off the ground, looks like something resembling a dog, with powerful thin back legs. The long tail is VERY clear in the slowed down footage, and the gait at that point isn't feline, its more canine than anything else.

Also note: it's at that same point the cameraman starts to run.

Compare the creature's mouth just before the movie ends with a dog's mouth:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4549

http://jebrown.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/dog_attack2.jpg

And then gorilla teeth:

http://www.millsworks.net/images/angry_gorilla_small.jpg

And baboon teeth:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/239/454459731_5ee6ce4239.jpg

And cat teeth:

http://www.vetnetwork.net/pca/articles/news/images/cat-teeth3.jpg

I would say the mouth and teeth are more like a great ape than a dog or cat.

[paradise_1000]

Its a gorilla due to the teeth

[paradise_1000]

WTF Baboons are Vamps :eek::eek::eek:

[veritasvoice]

Its a gorilla due to the teeth

I'd agree with you on the initial posture and gait, and the teeth...however, gorillas don't have long tails (which stills clearly show), or run that close to the ground. A gorilla's movement while running or charging is very distinctive indeed; and what the Gable film shows when it runs is more like a dog.

Note back legs:

http://www.naturalart.ca/images/prints/wildlifeart/_D2H5505_GrayWolfRunning.jpg

Note raised tail:

http://www.portraitofyourpet.net/images/running_wolf.jpg

So I think what we're looking at is something apelike able to shift to a doglike form, or a transgenic ape species.

[biblegirl]

(By the way, I'm rapidly realising that the 'field' of Cryptozoology is a total joke and coming to suspect that the true purpose of a lot of these types of websites is to downplay genuinely anomalous footage when it surfaces and dampen public interest in those cases by quickly implying or outright labelling them as hoaxes.

Agreed 100%.

The first letter of each word in the statement: Denouncing Negative Reactions Can Often Villify Every Rational Uniform Position spells out:

DNR COVERUP.

DNR = Department of Natural Resources?

Our only uncle was a film nut in college, back in the seventies. He was always making home movies and beer commercials. He was even hired, (not for pay), to help the Michigan Department of Natural Resources investigate and document a bear attack, just north of Bellaire. (Our Grandmother worked in the Antrim County Courthouse,…. she had a hand in getting him the gig). The victim’s name was Aaron GABLE.

…..GABLE!!!

My mother tells us that after filming the attack scene, our Uncle John was so distraught that he packed up his stuff and moved to Florida, two weeks later!. Mom says his behavior was becoming very psychotic, he couldn’t sleep at night and he kept going on about how “bears have FIVE toes,….. dogs have four”!. Just a week after he left, a DNR officer hand-delivered the film that Uncle John made to my Mother’s house. It’s been in a box in the basement ever since.

Now, I seem to recall that these films usually lasted about five minutes or so, but the film we have is only about a minute long… and the end of it was obviously torn off, not cut clean. I wonder just how much is missing?

it look's like somthing from "Nightmare Hall"

Dose anyone know of theres any Military bases, labs, ect, present around those parts?

*sigh* i'm really on a wild goose chase now....

What I've been looking at is the relationship of the states Wisconsin and Michigan, the two locations of the dogman sightings. Gable film 2 is said to have been shot north of Bellaire Michigan, which is in northern Michigan....the point at which northern Michigan and Wisconsin "meet" the closest (separated by water), is at Mackinac Island, which IMO has much reason to be suspect. From wiki:

The island was home to a Native American settlement before European exploration began in the 17th century. It served a strategic position amidst the commerce of the Great Lakes fur trade. This led to the establishment of Fort Mackinac on the island by the British during the American Revolutionary War. :rolleyes: It was the scene of two battles during the War of 1812.[4]
... Much of the island has undergone extensive historical preservation and restoration; as a result, the entire island is listed as a National Historic Landmark....
The island can be reached by private boat, by ferry, by small aircraft, and in the winter, by snowmobile... Motorized vehicles have been prohibited on the island since 1898 :confused:, with the exception of snowmobiles during winter, emergency vehicles, and service vehicles. Travel on the island is either by foot, bicycle, or horse-drawn carriage. ...The island is the location of Mackinac Island State Park, which covers approximately 80 percent of the island and includes Fort Mackinac as well as portions of the island's historic downtown and harbor. No camping is allowed on the island, but numerous hotels and bed and breakfasts are available...
Archaeologists have excavated prehistoric fishing camps on Mackinac Island and in the surrounding areas. Fishhooks, pottery, and other artifacts establish a Native American presence at least 700 years before European exploration, around AD 900. The island is a sacred place in the tradition of some of its earliest known inhabitants, the Anishinaabe (Ojibwa) tribes, who consider it to be home to the Gitche Manitou, or the "Great Spirit".[17] According to legend, Mackinac Island was created by the Great Hare, Michabou and was the first land to appear after the recession of the Great Flood.[18] The island was a gathering place for the local tribes where their offerings were made to Gitche Manitou and was where tribal chiefs were buried.
The first European likely to have seen Mackinac Island is...The Mackinac Island State Park Commission appointed to oversee the island has limited private development in the park and requires leaseholders to maintain the island's distinctive Victorian architecture.[5][22]
Motor vehicles were restricted at the end of the 19th century because of concerns for the health and safety of the island's residents and horses after local carriage drivers complained that automobiles startled their horses. This ban continues to the present with exceptions only for emergency and construction vehicles....
Post Cemetery, which is said to be one of only four locations in the United States where the U.S. flag is always flown at half-staff (the others are the Punchbowl in Honolulu, the Gettysburg National Cemetery, and Arlington National Cemetery).
...
A replica of the Statue of Liberty donated by the Boy Scouts of America in the historic Haldimand Bay on Mackinac Island
Every summer, Mackinac Island accommodates at least 50 Michigan Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts over alternate weeks. These scouts serve the state as the Mackinac Island Governor's Honor Guard. The program began in 1929, when the State Park Commission invited eight Eagle Scouts, including young Gerald Ford, to serve as honor guards for the Michigan governor. In 1974, the program was expanded to include Girl Scouts. The program is popular and selective. Scouts raise and lower all of the flags in the city and in Fort Mackinac, serve as guides, and complete service projects during their stay. These scouts live in the Scout Barracks located behind the fort.[49][50][51]
[edit]Ecology

Mackinac Island contains a wide variety of terrain, including fields, marshes, bogs, coastline, boreal forest, and limestone formations. The environment is legally preserved on the island by the State Historic Park designation. About half of the shoreline and adjacent waters off Mackinac Island, including the harbor (Haldimand Bay) and the southern and western shore from Mission Point to Pointe aux Pins, is protected as part of the Straits of Mackinac Shipwreck Preserve, a state marine park.[52]
As it is separated from the mainland by 3 miles (4.8 km) of water, few mammals inhabit the island, except those that traverse the ice during the winter months. Coyotes have recently been reported.[53] Bats are the most abundant mammals as crossing the water is no obstacle for them. There are many limestone caves serving as homes for the bats and many insects on the island for the bat to prey on......
Arch Rock on Mackinac Island
...The steep cliffs were one of the primary reasons for the British army's choice of the island for a fortification; their decision differed from that of the French army, which had built Fort Michilimackinac about 1715 near present-day Mackinaw City. The limestone formations are still part of the island's appeal. However, tourists are attracted by the natural beauty rather than the strategic value. One of the most popular geologic formations is Arch Rock, a natural limestone arch, 146 feet (45 m) above the ground.[4] Other popular geologic formations include Devil's Kitchen, Skull Cave, and Sugar Loaf.[5]...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

Phew, definitely a place of significance! there is so much information here I don't know that I can tackle all of it!! IMO this is a huge illuminati installation, whether you want to call it DNR, EPA, or State Park Commission...this place obviously has sacred qualities to it, and the natives were shooed aside while the british took over, then the whole place was declared a historic landmark! The goings on here are suspect IMO, I don't know if this has anything to do with dogman, but it's interesting anyway! The sacred-ness could mean a portal, the illuminati-ness could mean a base. But the bottom line is, Mackinac Island is a common denominator in the northern Michigan/Wisconsin connection. :D

[runlikehell]

Good find there Biblegirl i'l need to read over it a few times lol

Here's some variations of the footage,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37srLqgKVI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D73872&feature=player_embedded

NOTE: the person is in the truck when the thing is first spotted this is highlighted in the footage!

That leave one question why did the person leave the safety of the truck to go filming the thing?

[paradise_1000]

The Bite bit has been added in if you slow it down you can see quite obviously that its been edited in :rolleyes:

[size_of_light]

The Bite bit has been added in if you slow it down you can see quite obviously that its been edited in :rolleyes:

I'll post something shortly to show that it hasn't. ;)

[disorder2k8]

something about that vid doesnt seem right :o, I do have my reasonings

[size_of_light]

Good find there Biblegirl i'l need to read over it a few times lol

Here's some variations of the footage,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v37srLqgKVI&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edavidicke%2Ecom%2Fforum%2F showthread%2Ephp%3Ft%3D73872&feature=player_embedded

NOTE: the person is in the truck when the thing is first spotted this is highlighted in the footage!

That leave one question why did the person leave the safety of the truck to go filming the thing?

Thanks for posting this runlikehell.

A mysterious and brilliant flash of intuition from biblegirl the other night made me look closely for clues at the moment when the cameraman lowers the camera to run. There's a very brief shot looking down and you can see their own legs there...they're wearing dark shoes.

The person (woman I think) seen earlier in the full film, tinkering under the hood of the car (the same person chopping wood prior to that) is wearing white shoes. If the filmed journey/sighting/attack took place directly after that shot (which seems pretty likely, especially if you take into account that the lookalike victim in the Gable Film 2 is wearing that same top), then it means that adult wasnt filming the attack scene (i.e. the shoe colour doesn't match up).

Since the cameraman is glimpsed briefly in the rear-view mirror of the car and it's a young kid, that would suggest that the adult (who must have been driving the car) would have accompanied the kid as he set out on foot into the woods to track the animal and capture it on film. So there was almost certainly two of them out there.

Bearing that in mind, I realised that the animal isn't looking at the camera during the attack scene at all, but is responding to someone well off to the right of screen at roughly the same distance as the camera. That makes sense if there's a second person present - an adult - which the animal considers more of an immediate threat than the child cameraman.

These slow motion close-ups re-inforce that idea as they definitely show the animal moving it's head and responding to something in that direction also.

Once I twigged to this I found that all the enlarged enhancements of the animals face became consistent and a fairly clear picture of what it looks like has emerged.

Before that, assuming it was looking straight ahead or to the left of screen at one point, the enhancements variously showed it to look like an ape, a hippopotamus and even Shrek! :D

I'll post them soon, but getting back to leaving the car...good question.

Living in the Wisconsin wilderness, it's hard to imagine these people being reckless enough to just jump out and start tracking a bear or any other large, suspected predator into the woods on foot, unless it was something that seemed very anomalous to them at the time.

The slow-motions enhancements of the animal moving across the landscape before they get out of the car show it to be just that...it's propelled at speed by it's hind legs like a kangaroo, only they're much, much shorter than the front limbs, which steer and balance the animal like a gorilla. In different still frames from that section it looks like a panther, a 'reverse kangaroo', a chimpanzee and even an elephant!

I think the kid and the adult followed it and when the attack scene begins, the animal regards the larger adult (off to the right) as the greater threat and responds to them. It looks and also moves in that direction before detouring at the last moment towards the camera.

Maybe the adult shouted for the kid to run at that point.

My gut feeling (from having a bull terrier) is that the animal may have 'taken out' the cameraman/kid with just a passing blow (knocking/biting the camera from his hands) before heading on for the real target which was the adult.

I wonder what happened to the poor kid if the animal first killed the adult (as the Gable Film 2 suggests).

[size_of_light]

something about that vid doesnt seem right :o, I do have my reasonings

What do you think it is?

[biblegirl]

SOL, Gable Film 2 has removed by youtube since you posted that link on page 1 of this thread. From the youtube user who posted it:

...The thing that gets me tho is I posted part of the first gable film along with the second one so people could get a good look at it all at once and come up with there own Ideas. Well youtube removed my video of it, said I violated terms of use. This most likely means that second gable film is copyrighted, that would mean its not a conspiracy involving the DNR but someone wanting to get rich off this new video...

Okay I tried replying I dont think youtube likes me. They gave me shit about me putting gable film 1&2 together and removed it from my youtube. Look at my link in the information side bar. And check that out and also ghostheory (com.) Link is on site. I'm not in on this i'm the only one actively trying to disprove this whole thing. Am I the only one on the ball? A person before even asked if I was Quinlan!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJOk19CRXjU&NR=1


I've been looking at the Gable Film 2 a bit...unfortunately it's difficult to make out the writing on the tablets held by the police officer. The first two are more clear, the first one reads Reel 2 Attack S____ then Vehicle Reg Aaron Gable. Hmm, Reel 2 suggests a Reel 1 from this same case. Then the cameraman is directed to the body, and the officer shows two pages which I can't read at all....but I noticed the body was quite a distance from the camera (and no additional body shown there)...the camera has two pages near it (again I can't read them), then two more pages on either side of some evidence???, one of which reads GIA___. I wonder what this piece of evidence was, as I can't really see anything on the film.

If the accompanying story to this video is correct (about Uncle John and all that), I do wonder what, if anything, was inscribed on the front of the actual tape, if it was a case number like below, that would be very helpful. Any more ideas on this, or what MPO stands for? The best I can guess is Metropolitan Planning Organization , which is an abbreviation in this text which includes Michigan funding and implementation criteria http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:hRjrONWWR6MJ:www.eup-planning.org/eup_PDFs/NTIS/09NTIS_CHAP7FUNDING.pdf+michigan+dnr+mpo&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

from the Gable film 1:
The 8mm reel did not have any detailed information about who or where the film was shot. The only information known was the inscription “Gable Case #MPO41177-1” that was on the film canister.

[brainfreeze]

SOL, Gable Film 2 has removed by youtube since you posted that link on page 1 of this thread. From the youtube user who posted it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJOk19CRXjU&NR=1


I've been looking at the Gable Film 2 a bit...unfortunately it's difficult to make out the writing on the tablets held by the police officer. The first two are more clear, the first one reads Reel 2 Attack S____ then Vehicle Reg Aaron Gable. Hmm, Reel 2 suggests a Reel 1 from this same case. Then the cameraman is directed to the body, and the officer shows two pages which I can't read at all....but I noticed the body was quite a distance from the camera (and no additional body shown there)...the camera has two pages near it (again I can't read them), then two more pages on either side of some evidence???, one of which reads GIA___. I wonder what this piece of evidence was, as I can't really see anything on the film.

If the accompanying story to this video is correct (about Uncle John and all that), I do wonder what, if anything, was inscribed on the front of the actual tape, if it was a case number like below, that would be very helpful. Any more ideas on this, or what MPO stands for? The best I can guess is Metropolitan Planning Organization , which is an abbreviation in this text which includes Michigan funding and implementation criteria http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:hRjrONWWR6MJ:www.eup-planning.org/eup_PDFs/NTIS/09NTIS_CHAP7FUNDING.pdf+michigan+dnr+mpo&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

from the Gable film 1:

Nice work!

[disorder2k8]

What do you think it is?

the creatures legs do stick out to the side slightly when it runs and its back is a little more raised, which would suggest it was humanoid, running on all fours

the other thing is the random and holly wood style cuts, and the fact that the fangs appeared on camera at all, its just screams "cloverfield", and its a bit of a cliché

[size_of_light]

SOL, Gable Film 2 has removed by youtube since you posted that link on page 1 of this thread. From the youtube user who posted it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJOk19CRXjU&NR=1


I've been looking at the Gable Film 2 a bit...unfortunately it's difficult to make out the writing on the tablets held by the police officer. The first two are more clear, the first one reads Reel 2 Attack S____ then Vehicle Reg Aaron Gable. Hmm, Reel 2 suggests a Reel 1 from this same case. Then the cameraman is directed to the body, and the officer shows two pages which I can't read at all....but I noticed the body was quite a distance from the camera (and no additional body shown there)...the camera has two pages near it (again I can't read them), then two more pages on either side of some evidence???, one of which reads GIA___. I wonder what this piece of evidence was, as I can't really see anything on the film.

If the accompanying story to this video is correct (about Uncle John and all that), I do wonder what, if anything, was inscribed on the front of the actual tape, if it was a case number like below, that would be very helpful. Any more ideas on this, or what MPO stands for? The best I can guess is Metropolitan Planning Organization , which is an abbreviation in this text which includes Michigan funding and implementation criteria http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:hRjrONWWR6MJ:www.eup-planning.org/eup_PDFs/NTIS/09NTIS_CHAP7FUNDING.pdf+michigan+dnr+mpo&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

from the Gable film 1:

There's a lot about the second film of interest.

I've compared the final resting position of the camera in the original film, with the position and direction of the camera in the grass in relation to the copse of trees that are seen briefly as the cameraman approaches it in Gable Film 2.

It seems consistent, but the scenery where the attack occurred looks less densely wooded than the same area in the original. A bit more like open walking tracks just off the road than deep in the woods. It's hard to tell much though, with the poor quality of GF2.

Re: the body, I think Gable Film 2 tries to record paths through the grass, maybe indicating that the victim has been dragged a distance?

GIA...could it stand for Ground Impression (or Imprint) Associated? It seems to be marking an imprint in the dirt. I tried to enhance the shot but it's too blurry to see a print for sure.

Re: MPO....Michigan Police Office/Only/Ongoing etc. or is the 'O' a zero?

Another couple of possibilities suggested at ghosttheory.com were:

Since the rumor out there is that the original Gable film was labeled as
“Gable Case #MPO41177-1”

I think I found something I think might be relevant.
According to Wikipedia, there was a Michael Patterson that was killed by a bear attack in Michigan in 1978.

Michael Scott Patterson June 19, 1978 Black Porcupine Mountains State Park, Michigan

Wiki link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America


Can it be that the MP in case #MPO41177-1 stand for Michael Patterson?

and

MPO VIDEOTRONICS is a production film company that started in 1947 and then sold the film company 1974,, and just focused on making projectors.. Here’s a link to a brief history on MPO VIDEOTRONICS!! http://www.mpo-video.com/history.htm


At the moment I'm leaning towards GF2 being genuine, since the victim, the vehicle and the camera are a match, and other little details like the direction the officer indicates away from the abandoned car correlate with the original.

Still questions about the scenery, the lack of blood around the victim and why Quinlan didn't fill in the blanks that are hard to make out in the copy of the projected film, like if the registration number of the car can be made out in his original and what do the titles on the sheets of paper say? etc.

If it's a hoax, then someone's gone to a lot of time and trouble to get certain details to match up. The legless corpse looks too realistic to be a dummy, and if it's someone half buried in the ground wearing a fake torso, that's an awkward position to stay in for very long, and there's also no signs of disturbed soil around the body, so the hole they would have had to make would have taken a bit of work to conceal.

Maybe it's a sophisticated hoax created by the authorities to discredit the original film in the future? Quinlan's whole story and his apparent warning off and 'disappearance' now could be part of that ruse.

Great info on Mackinac Island, btw. ;)

[runlikehell]

Good work put in there SIize of light, and Biblegirl.

I found two comparision pictures from the gable video 1 and 2

The first is the truck seen in both videos, and they seem to be very similar

http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/trucks-gable.jpg


second is the camera used in the first gable film, and the one found in the gable video 2

http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/camera-gable.jpg


http://www.ghosttheory.com/crypto/gable-film-a-bear-attack-video/


I have a friend who used to collect antiques, he has the exact same kind of camera seen in pic one left hand side above.

I could ask him to look it out so i can try take some photos, and also get information about it make, model, ect, if it helps.

What do you think should i persue it?

[size_of_light]

the creatures legs do stick out to the side slightly when it runs and its back is a little more raised, which would suggest it was humanoid, running on all fours

the other thing is the random and holly wood style cuts, and the fact that the fangs appeared on camera at all, its just screams "cloverfield", and its a bit of a cliché

I think the more you watch it, the more it becomes evident that a human couldn't make those movements. Also there's several still frames where one of the hind legs appears impossibly narrow for it to be a human leg in a suit.

The full film felt a little staged when I first saw it also...having watched it over and over though, there's a perfectly good explanation for that: it is.

This was back in the 70s and an 8mm film camera wasn't like the disposable video cameras of today. Shots would have to have been thought about and composed before hand in order to conserve film and ensure that the cost and time involved in getting the final reel processed was worth it when you sat down with your projector to watch your family masterpiece at the end of it. It does tell a story of sorts, but I think that was probably common with most 8mm amateur reels of the time for those reasons.

My biggest problem initially was the 'cloverfield vibe' of the fangs at the end too. But I think I can show with a high resolution close up of the animal's teeth at the start of the attack scene that they're an almost perfect match with the ones at the end, so unless the moving animal itself is a fake of some sort (or a pet :eek: :D), how would the filmmakers have known what they looked like and edited in a matching dental replica in the final shot?

EDIT: Also, the 'too good to be true' sense you get when you see the creature's jaws lunge at the camera isn't as staged as it first seems if you consider that the cameraman was running, so the camera would have been waist height (or lower) when the animal initiated contact with it's victim.

Given that an 8mm camera, is shiny, conspicous, and makes a whirring sound, it seems logical that the animal might strike it first, assuming it was the 'head' of it's prey. It could have interpreted the reflective black lens of the camera as the 'eye' which is why we've ended up with such an amazing final shot.

[size_of_light]

Good work put in there SIize of light, and Biblegirl.

I found two comparision pictures from the gable video 1 and 2

The first is the truck seen in both videos, and they seem to be very similar

http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/trucks-gable.jpg


second is the camera used in the first gable film, and the one found in the gable video 2

http://www.ghosttheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/camera-gable.jpg


http://www.ghosttheory.com/crypto/gable-film-a-bear-attack-video/


I have a friend who used to collect antiques, he has the exact same kind of camera seen in pic one left hand side above.

I could ask him to look it out so i can try take some photos, and also get information about it make, model, ect, if it helps.

What do you think should i persue it?

Definitely, runlikehell.

It would be good to know directly from someone with expertise instead of relying on what others on the net have said about it so far.

I wonder what would be harder - getting a matching 70s vehicle in the same condition, or a matching 8mm film camera?

[biblegirl]

I have a friend who used to collect antiques, he has the exact same kind of camera seen in pic one left hand side above.

I could ask him to look it out so i can try take some photos, and also get information about it make, model, ect, if it helps.

What do you think should i persue it?

yes i would like to know why we don't have audio on this film, is the camera capable? if yes then someone (mind stage productions?) has since removed the audio, and could put a much different spin on all of this

[biblegirl]

Okay, so I've broken down the full film into each segment (when recording was stopped, then resumed) :o. Completing this breakdown has reaffirmed for me that most of the pre-attack filming was done in an effort to find and record the creature:

Start to 1:27: random shots of people on snowmobiles
1:28 Wood chopping scene
1:38 Shot of woods
1:44 Shot of woods, something in the center of the shot?
1:48 Dog approaching from the road and sniffing around the snow
2:05 Dog sniffing snow
2:11 Dog appears to sense something, stands still, ears perked, staring into the woods, camera pans into the woods to see ??
2:18 Working under hood of truck scene, same dog is present
2:28 Recording road and woods from moving vehicle, cameraman in side mirror
2:39 Recording at a distance from moving vehicle, possible shot of the creature running???
2:45 Shot of woods (camera man standing still)
2:49 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:02 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:08 to end: attack scene

[supertzar]

yes i would like to know why we don't have audio on this film, is the camera capable? if yes then someone (mind stage productions?) has since removed the audio, and could put a much different spin on all of this

8mm film cameras don't have sound.

[size_of_light]

Okay, so I've broken down the full film into each segment (when recording was stopped, then resumed) :o. Completing this breakdown has reaffirmed for me that most of the pre-attack filming was done in an effort to find and record the creature:

Start to 1:27: random shots of people on snowmobiles
1:28 Wood chopping scene
1:38 Shot of woods
1:44 Shot of woods, something in the center of the shot?
1:48 Dog approaching from the road and sniffing around the snow
2:05 Dog sniffing snow
2:11 Dog appears to sense something, stands still, ears perked, staring into the woods, camera pans into the woods to see ??
2:18 Working under hood of truck scene, same dog is present
2:28 Recording road and woods from moving vehicle, cameraman in side mirror
2:39 Recording at a distance from moving vehicle, possible shot of the creature running???
2:45 Shot of woods (camera man standing still)
2:49 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:02 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:08 to end: attack scene

That's a really interesting take on it.

This is what I played around with:

First shots are of kid/s on a snowmobile, followed by the adult (maybe) filming a POV driving the snowmobile themselves (suggests a novelty factor to filming 'gee-whiz' scenes first up which might mean that the camera was new, and since it's snowing it could have been something the family just got for Christmas)

Wood chopping (looks set-up, suggests another novelty shot with a new camera)

From then on, I think you might be right.

When they're on the icy road it suggests they could have gone out looking for something, and those other shots of the woods now make sense in the same context.

Really good thinking.

There's a time-gap between the snow melting away and the car trip, so maybe whatever they saw or sensed in winter re-appeared which prompted the hunt. The camera in the car pans out into the woods so it does seem that they're keeping an eye out for something.

[biblegirl]

Bearing that in mind, I realised that the animal isn't looking at the camera during the attack scene at all, but is responding to someone well off to the right of screen at roughly the same distance as the camera. That makes sense if there's a second person present - an adult - which the animal considers more of an immediate threat than the child cameraman.

These slow motion close-ups re-inforce that idea as they definitely show the animal moving it's head and responding to something in that direction also.
...
My gut feeling (from having a bull terrier) is that the animal may have 'taken out' the cameraman/kid with just a passing blow (knocking/biting the camera from his hands) before heading on for the real target which was the adult.

I wonder what happened to the poor kid if the animal first killed the adult (as the Gable Film 2 suggests).

Great post!! Yeah it is very possible that the creature is focused on someone/something to the right of the cameraman (wonder if the dog was with them?), and after watching it again it does look that way.

I also wonder what happened to the kid if he was the cameraman...we do know that he did not make his escape in the truck, because the parked truck was part of the investigation in Gable film 2. Poor people.

[biblegirl]

This Gable "bear attack" case apparently did not make it on the wiki list of fatal bear attacks in North America. Also I have searched for some sort of obituary but have not come across anything yet. This from wiki:

Between 1900 and 2003 there were about 52 recorded deaths due to black bears, 50 due to brown bears and 5 due to polar bears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

I did find some other information of interest.

Although black bears are large and powerful animals, they are not normally aggressive toward man. Black bear attacks are responsible for only three deaths in Michigan, the most storied attack occurring in the Eastern U.P. on July 7th, 1948 - A three year old girl was playing on the porch of the family cabin when she was snatched by a black bear, carried into the bush, and partly eaten.
http://www.geocities.com/amytys/MiBears.htm

Looking into this case shows that it was reported in Saulte Sainte Marie Michigan....the map shows this location to be in very close proximity to that island I mentioned earlier, which I thought was a interesting coincidence, considering the rarity of fatal bear attacks in the first place (just over 100 total on the entire continent over a 100-year span). This story has a bit of a mysterious quality to it though:


Near Sault Sainte Marie, Michigan, on July 7, 1948, there occurred an instance of an attack by a bear on a human which as far as can be ascertained is without parallel...all of the circumstances and conditions surrounding the situation indicate that here was an example of true predation by a black bear on the human species in which the objective was simply to obtain food. The tragic aspects of this case are such that it is reported with some hesitation, and it has been intentionally delayed :confused: so that the passage of time might alleviate to some extent the mental anguish of those intimately connected by close relationship to the unfortunate victim....the account of Mrs. Arthur Pomranky:

"On July 7, 1948, at approximately 2:30pm I was in the kitchen of our cabin at Mission Hill in company with Mrs. Merlin Summers, a friend. I was sitting about four feet from the back door with my back to the south wall of the kitchen and Mrs. Summers was in the middle of the kitchen ironing clothes. Mrs. Summers was facing south or to the rear of the room, and in line with the back windows, although from her position, could not see the rear yard...my daughter Carol Ann was playing in the back yard, and had been for most of the time she was outside, in the close vicinity of the back porch. My first indication that anything was wrong was when I heard Carol Ann utter a cry of alarm, I ran to the back door, which was open with the screen door closed. Carol Ann, when I reached the door, was on her hands and knees on the porch with one hand touching the screen in the door, and a bear was about mid point up the three steps of the back porch. The bear growled showing his teeth and grabbed Carol Ann with his mouth and pulled her off the porch onto the ground where he picked her up by the arm with his mouth. At this point, Mrs. Summers pulled me from the door and shut the inside door :eek::eek::eek:.

This last sentence provokes many questions IMO. After the door was shut the mother apparently ran for the pistol, which she could not load in her excitement, then ran to the door, but the bear and child had disappeared into the bushes. The girl was later found but I won't post those details here.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gFlz6UKGqrcC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=mrs+merlin+summers+1948+bear&source=bl&ots=alhBY0RYII&sig=b0BfY7nHdrwDhYWhQuWEY2kGlvk&hl=en&ei=nS5vSt7CC5PgtgPXx6D6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
(rest of the story follows from page 92)

The details of this attack are unusual, and it is even the most "storied" attack in Michigan. The location is also interesting. Hmm.

[metacomet]

Wow biblegirl, you really know how to research!

[gripit]

:eek::confused::eek::confused: Wow, very freaky stuff. I've seen plenty of bears, but never seen one move like that. I definitely think it's some sort of animal though, not CGI or a person in a suit. I think I'm hooked, and I have nothing better to do, so I'll see what I can dig up to fill in the blanks :)

Maybe it's an American Werewolf in...America! :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ERwE7b4h2k&feature=PlayList&p=FBA1BA458E09276A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8846/americanww.jpg (http://img269.imageshack.us/i/americanww.jpg/) http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/americanww.jpg/1/w700.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img269/americanww.jpg/1/)

[biblegirl]

hey gripit :)

yikes, that photo is chilling in light of how the creature on the film appears...

[gripit]

hey gripit :)

yikes, that photo is chilling in light of how the creature on the film appears...

Hey biblegirl :)

I know :eek:

How big do you guys reckon that thing is? Maybe it's a mutant wolverine?! They generally only get to 1.5 ft high, 3 ft long and 70 lbs. Any nuclear plants nearby there?! :p

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5407/wolverinessc.jpg (http://img39.imageshack.us/i/wolverinessc.jpg/)

[gripit]

Has the Sister Lakes Monster been mentioned? It's also in Michigan.


During the summer of '64 residents of the neighborhood around Cass County's Sister Lakes looked over their shoulders in the gathering gloom

by Lane Wick - Hometown Gazette

CASSOPOLIS - Even today, former Cass County Sheriff Paul Parrish says it was one of the strangest times in his 33 years of southwestern Michigan law enforcement.

"We investigated it long and hard" Parrish says, "but we were never able to come up with whatever it was. But some good, honest, legitimate people" reported it.

The "it" was the elusive and storied Sister Lakes Monster, a huge hulking thing that supposedly wandered the northwestern Cass County area (north of Dowagiac, south of Keeler) near Dewey Lake in the mid-1960s.

Parrish was a Cass County road patrol sergeant at the time. "There were big footprints" Parrish says. "A lot bigger than normal. We took plaster casts of them, but they were in sandy soil and not very clear."

Monster mania, or something like that, hit the Sister Lakes area in June of 1964 when at least one family reported the beast roaming at dark on several occasions behind their house. Dogs that normally charge intruders instead cowered by the house. Strangely, one dog that ran at the intruding beast was struck temporarily blind in one eye, it was said.

There had been similar "monster" reports in the area for several years according to news accounts of the time, but the 1964 reports set off a blitzkrieg of reporters, curiosity seekers and, more worrisome, heavily armed monster hunters. People swarmed the area.

Parrish remembers that, as newspaper and radio reports told of the monster, carloads of people began cruising the Dewey Lake area at night. Some were armed with "big deer rifles" he said. The sheriff's department set up roadblocks to divert traffic away.

"People were quite upset" Parrish says. "We tried to get to the bottom of it. We spent the whole summer on stakeouts and follow-ups, but we never nailed it down. It was a weird thing."

Descriptions of the monster varied, Parrish says. Some reported a huge hairy beast with glowing eyes. Others said they saw no eyes. Some said the creature had long arms.

Yellowed Kalamazoo Gazette news clippings from June 11, 1964, describe a night of Cass County sheriff's patrols with deputies chasing off the curious and patrolling with spotlights in search of the monster. "Whatever it is" a deputy said then, "it's supposed to have eyes that are big, bright,.....and high."

In another Gazette article that day, a man said he actually saw the monster and "it's eyes shone like those of an animal with night vision." The man's wife reported that one night she stepped outside her back door and heard the "thing" out in the dark, approaching her. She said the ground "rumbled" from it's weight.

Not everyone took the monster reports seriously. People chided each other that, if they weren't careful "Bigfoot will get you", Parrish recalls. For a while a local restaurant offered Monster Burgers. In a possible tongue-in-cheek move, local skin divers offered to explore the depths of the nearby lake for monster clues.

Some speculated that a bear was on the prowl, while others thought it possible a chimpanzee or similar zoo animal had escaped into the area. According to Parrish, the monster reports eventually died out but remain a mystery to this day. "I have no opinion of what it might have been" Parrish says. "People were really concerned."

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9571/michigancrew.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/i/michigancrew.jpg/) http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/michigancrew.jpg/1/w450.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img29/michigancrew.jpg/1/)

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3536/michiganpic.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/michiganpic.jpg/) http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/michiganpic.jpg/1/w600.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img268/michiganpic.jpg/1/)



http://www.sisterlakesmi.com/bigfoot_sightings.htm

[biblegirl]

Great find on the Monster! I've never heard of this one before :).

"Huge hulking thing?" Wow. Interesting that it made headlines back then, I wonder whatever happened to it??

Also it's interesting that "glowing eyes" were reported, this feature is corroborated worldwide in various monster accounts...gives me the creeps...

[biblegirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwFZYCwnS0

have you guys seen the song yet? it's quite entertaining (and informative :eek:)!!

[biblegirl]

How big do you guys reckon that thing is? Maybe it's a mutant wolverine?! They generally only get to 1.5 ft high, 3 ft long and 70 lbs. Any nuclear plants nearby there?! :p


hmm good question

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/Big_Paw.jpg

[biblegirl]

Michiganders on the eastern side of the state may think they are safe from the stealthy predations of the Michigan Dog Man. But an Ann Arbor man wrote to say he has had encounters with an upright, unknown creature for the past 12 years in this vicinity. Most of the sightings have occurred on his family's property which backs up to a marshy woods, very typical terrain for this critter.

The 26-year old says although he or his friends have never been hurt, he feels they are being watched or "played with." One of the most startling incident occurred when a visting friend saw something with a head like a German shepherd or wolf that stood six feet tall as it peered into a window on the writer's property. The window happened to be on an entry to a pole barn, and the creature was "leaning down" to have a good look inside, as if checking for livestock.

Moving northward, a woman from Bay City had several experiences growing up near Essexville. She first experienced a phantom wolf with glowing yellow eyes in a corner of her bedroom at the age of 13, and began to feel "something" was after her whenever she went outside. Three years later, in 1998, she had just gotten her driver's license and was driving herself home one night at dusk past an area of cornfields and irrigation ditches when she noticed something running alongside her car, its back even with the bottom of the drivers side window on her GMC Jimmy . She was going 30 miles an hour, and so was the creature which was larger than a deer and covered in dark, shaggy fur. Suddenly, it bumped the truck and actually pushed it a foot to the right. She stepped on the gas and sped home, raced into the house and locked all the doors. The next day she found a large indentation where the creature had rammed her truck.

I've received many other reports of this type of creature chasing or running alongside cars, both upright and on all fours, so -- scarily -- her experience isn't all that unusual.
http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/michigan/weird-wednesday-the-dogman-in-washtenaw-county/

"Smiling" dogmen reports:
In the summer of 1938, Robert Fortney was 17 years old and jobless in the midst of the Great Depression. As he fished from the banks of the Muskegon River near Paris, Michigan, he was startled when a pack of what appeared to be large feral dogs emerged from the woods nearby.

Fortney remained silent, but the sensitive noses of the dogs quickly picked up his scent. Since he had been small game hunting earlier in the day, Fortney had his loaded rifle nearby. As the dogs approached, they assumed the group posture of a pack on a hunt. Fortney picked up the gun and fired a shot into the air.

The dogs cringed and turned to slink back into the forest, all except one: a huge black dog with unusual eyes.

"They were blue," said Fortney. "What kind of dog has blue eyes?" The big dog and Fortney considered each other for a long moment, less than ten feet separating them. Fortney fired another shot over the head of the strange dog. Then to Fortney's shock and amazement, the black dog stood up on two legs and cast a glare that sent shivers down his spine.

"It reared up on its hind legs and stared at me," said Fortney in a phone interview in 1987. "It may be that I was just scared, but I swear that dog was smiling at me."

After a few seconds that seemed like several hours, the black dog returned to all fours and followed his pack into the woods. Fortney was so shaken by the experience he told only a few close friends and family members about it. He kept it a secret for almost 50 years - until 1987 - when Fortney heard the song, "The Legend" on WTCM. He couldn't believe his ears, and felt a great sense of relief that maybe he wasn't crazy after all.
Status: Confirmed

Sources: Three independent sources
http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encParis.html

In the summer of 1967, a group of young people arrived the tiny hamlet of Cross Village. Driving a Dodge van adorned with an elaborate paint job of psychedelic patterns and flowers, the group said they were visiting from a farm commune in northern Ohio. They were scouting the area around Cross Village for suitable land, possibly to expand the commune northward.

The townspeople of Cross Village were understandably suspicious of the group, being the only real “hippies” most of them had ever seen. But despite their colorful vehicle, long hair, and strange clothing, the young strangers were polite and well-behaved, and seemed sincere in their desire to talk business.

It soon became known around town that the hippies were camping near the Lake Michigan shore at the end of an unnamed dirt road. About a week after they arrived, a state trooper decided to pay them a visit, and request that they move their van to a more suitable (and legal) campsite.


When the trooper arrived that morning the van was gone, but a forest ranger was on the scene collecting some litter they had left behind. He told the trooper he had arrived about an hour earlier, and found the kids hurriedly packing their belongings. When he asked them what the problem was, they pointed to what appeared to be large dog tracks in the sand, all around the van. The girls were crying so hard they could not speak. Finally one of the young men gathered himself enough to relate the story.

The group had been up late the night before, talking and partying. At about 3am, they turned off the radio in the van and got ready to bed down. With the music gone, they all heard the sound of foot steps outside, and a 'rubbing noise” on the walls of the van. Then there was a metallic scratching on the rear doors. One of the young men crawled to the back windows and pulled back the curtain.

"There was this 'thing' looking back in," said the young man, tears welling in his eyes. "It scared the crap out of us – the girls screamed. It just stared in and like...smiled. I jumped back and the curtain fell down." Shortly thereafter they heard a low guttural growl, and two bangs on the back door of the van. Then nothing. None of them slept the rest of the night.



Status: Confirmed

Sources: National Park Service, MSP, Local interviewshttp://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encCrossVil.html

[gripit]

:eek:


West Michigan Shape Shifters

A shape shifter is a mythical creature that can change form at will. Many cryptids (creatures which are believed to exist but for which no conclusive scientific evidence has been found) are also linked to shape shifter legends and lore.

Shape shifting cryptids commonly reported in Michigan each and every year draw cryptozoologists, paranormal investigators, and traditional folklorists from all over the United States to study them.

In fact, you might have seen one yourself.

The Michigan Dogman is a local cryptid that was popularized in 1987 by DJ Jack O'Malley and his production manager Steve Cook of WTCM radio. The two men invented the Dogman (or thought they did) by cobbling together various legends (like the New Jersey Devil and the Boggy Creek Monster), and then wrote a song about him that they played as a prank on their show.

To both men's shock and surprise, reports of actual sightings of the Michigan Dogman started to pour in almost immediately after broadcasting the prank. Looking into the sightings a bit more seriously, the two men discovered that such reports had been taking place in and around Michigan since the early 1800s, when French traders visiting the local Indians referred to the creature as the loup garou (which is French for werewolf).

Numerous people who report seeing the Dog Man describe a moment in which a creature who looks like a very unusual and very large dog suddenly stands upright and seems to transform itself into a cross between a dog and a man right before their eyes. Such transformations are typical of shape shifters.

Another kind of shape shifting creature that haunts certain parts of Michigan, especially Wayne and Otsego Counties, is a large black panther-like cat.

Reports of black panthers in places where black panthers do not belong have been occurring throughout North America and Europe for about 25 years. England continues to experience a rash of such sightings, as other parts of the United States experience them as well.

While brown cougars are native to North America, neither brown cougars nor black panthers are native to England, and black panthers are not native anywhere in the U.S. In fact, some controversy exists over whether even plain brown cougars exist in Michigan near cities, so reports of black panthers are doubly strange.

Some researchers who have studied the black panther reports attribute such sightings to escaped zoo panthers that have managed to naturalize locally, but animal biologists see this explanation as very unlikely.

Other paranormal researchers explain the appearance of the large black cats as being a manifestation of a creature that can inhabit both imagination and physical reality at the same time or shift back and forth between them, depending on conditions.

In other words, a shape shifter of this kind is part supernatural entity, but also has physical mass and physical characteristics when it wants to manifest them.

While all of this may seem incredible and strange, it's worth noting that mainstream folklorists like Indiana University's Thomas E. Bullard have been publishing papers on the possibility that certain kinds of folklore and certain urban legends spring from a real, physiological experience, and that such reports differ significantly from other mere stories and traditional myths.

Other researchers have tied the appearance of shape shifting creatures in modern times to the ancient Greek concept of the daemon (from which the contemporary word 'demon' derives). The word 'daemon' literally means "spirit of place" and refers to a living being that inhabits both physical and spiritual realms.

So if you're out fishing or hunting the woods of West Michigan this summer and you spot something strange; something not quite animal and not quite human: you're definitely not alone in what you see.

Close your mouth. Catch your breath. Grab your camera.



http://www.examiner.com/x-16975-Grand-Rapids-New-Age-Examiner~y2009m7d15-West-Michigan-Shape-Shifters

[biblegirl]

Josh (last name withheld) was camping with a friend at a park in southern Mississippi in the fall of 2007. It was a sunny and warm autumn day. Josh and his companion were preparing dinner at the campsite when they both observed an animal moving in a wooded area along the perimeter of the park.
At first he thought it was just a large dog, but as he watched it, the creature underwent a remarkable transformation. In Josh's own words:

"...its front legs extended all of a sudden, and popped upwards as it stood (upright). Then did the same thing as is went back to walking on all fours. It had short hair... big dark green or brown eyes, and a long snout. It definitely saw me and my friend. When it stood it turned toward us, then went back down on all fours and ran off very fast."

Josh and his friend were incredulous, and discussed what they had seen with each other, but did not share the encounter with anyone else for fear of ridicule. Neither witness had never heard of the Michigan Dogman until Josh happened upon the website while surfing one day. When he saw the still images taken from the Gable Film, he could not believe his eyes. The Gable creature depicted is an exact twin of what he claims to have seen that day.

Status: Open

Sources: Two direct witnesses
http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encMiss.html

[biblegirl]

The source of these images owns a significant parcel of land, upon which he regularly hunts deer and small game. In early January, he placed a motion sensitive digital camera on a platform mounted on a tree. The motion sensor, mounted below the platform, was 5 feet above the ground. The camera lens was elevated roughly 6 feet.

He captured several images of deer in the following days, but one day, he found the camera dangling from its cord, knocked from the platform. After downloading the camera's contents into him computer, he discovered these images:
Image One: The Eye
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/3281/eyedogman.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/eyedogman.jpg/)
The first image is a closeup of a human-like eye that appears to be surrounded by fur. At first glance it appears to be a shot of the right side of the face (imagine the snout on the lower right of the image). However, some viewers believe the image actually depicts the left side of the face with the head slightly tilted and the eye articulated to the far left (imagine the snout emerging at the top left of the image). Considered from this perspective, the dark line above the eye takes on the shape of an eyebrow. Remember the lens of the camera was six feet above the ground when this image was taken.
Image Two: The Teeth
http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3260/dogmanteeth.jpg (http://img194.imageshack.us/i/dogmanteeth.jpg/)
The second image appears to have been shot a split second after the first, and depicts what appears to be the right side of the face, perhaps just as the camera was knocked from its perch. Note the short profile of the snout, and the misshapen canine teeth. The creature appears to be either snarling or smiling.
Image Three: The Foot
http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4606/dogmanpaw.jpg (http://img190.imageshack.us/i/dogmanpaw.jpg/)
The third image appears to have been shot as the camera dangled from its cable. It clearly shows the right paw of the creature, surrounded by a thick layer of light tan fur. The paw seems to be holding a deer leg that appears to have been skinned recently (note the clean cut of fur at the bone in the lower left of the image). The source reports there were no bones, blood, or remains at the site where these images were taken.

Status: Open

Sources: Anonymous
http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encAntrimCty.html

[veritasvoice]

FANTASTIC research, Biblegirl. :)

The Native American connection for the area makes me think skinwalker; or someone using the connections to Indian mythology to give the impression of one. The details of the other Michigan monster sighting is interesting as well.

Any chance that maybe the people in the truck thought they were following a Sasquatch, but got a big shock when they got close enough to make out the details?

Edit: the more I watch this movie, the more I get that impression. They had no idea what they were tracking, and had probably spotted it while driving along.

[runlikehell]

Okay, so I've broken down the full film into each segment (when recording was stopped, then resumed) :o. Completing this breakdown has reaffirmed for me that most of the pre-attack filming was done in an effort to find and record the creature:

Start to 1:27: random shots of people on snowmobiles
1:28 Wood chopping scene
1:38 Shot of woods
1:44 Shot of woods, something in the center of the shot?
1:48 Dog approaching from the road and sniffing around the snow
2:05 Dog sniffing snow
2:11 Dog appears to sense something, stands still, ears perked, staring into the woods, camera pans into the woods to see ??
2:18 Working under hood of truck scene, same dog is present
2:28 Recording road and woods from moving vehicle, cameraman in side mirror
2:39 Recording at a distance from moving vehicle, possible shot of the creature running???
2:45 Shot of woods (camera man standing still)
2:49 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:02 Panning shots around woods (walking)
3:08 to end: attack scene

Hello Bilblegirl do you mind if i add a couple of things (i hope not)


Well spotted Biblegirl there are two snowmobiles!

0:42 The snow mobile see here is green, has a sunken lighht, and the person riding it seems to be wearing a red top or shirt, (arms arent coverd up) dark tousers possably jeans, and black looking footware

The camera cuts

0:43 the snowmobile seen here is yellow, the rider seen here seems to be wearing a hat, dark jacket (with long sleeves) and lightly coloured tousers.

0:56 note the black footware and the clear yellow colour of the snowmobile and the porojecting light at the front also seen at 1:10

1:17 theres a breif view in the snow mobile with again is clearly yellow, and what looks like a dark blue trouser leg.

1:36 note the wood cutters shirt sems dark checked shirt, diffrent from the person on the snow mobile, and in the Gable film 2


2:22 Note the person fixing the trucks white footware, and as stated above the dogs alertness to somthing

2:36 just after the you see the boys face in the wing mirror and it scans back to the woods, there is some sort of building behind the trees.

2:38 camera scans across the road (to the right hand side of screen) then back to the left.

2:39 At this point you can clearly see somthing heading into the woods ,the truck door opens and you can still glimpse the creature! cameraman gives chase

NOTE: i doubt this is the dog as the truck is moving too fast

2:56 there is a tree in the center of the screen and just to the left of it theres another tree in the back gound the creature looks like it's just behind or beside the second tree (Black shape

2:52 ground and trees

2:56 creature spotted

3:00 - 3:06 ground and trees

3:06 creature spotted again (over to the right of the screen)

3:08 main shot of creature (as stated above)

(I had made a few screen shots but when i viewed them back all i had was a black screen :mad::mad:)

I downloaded the footage with a youtube downloader (Link Below) and converted the FLV file to a Windows Media Video (V7 WMV)
and played back with windows media player and Real player

http://youtubedownload.altervista.org/download.htm

[biblegirl]

Great work! It really feels like the story is coming together when we connect the dots here :). The full film is actually seeming to be more valuable in this investigation with each new time I watch it.



1:36 note the wood cutters shirt sems dark checked shirt, diffrent from the person on the snow mobile, and in the Gable film 2


2:22 Note the person fixing the trucks white footware, and as stated above the dogs alertness to somthing possible tracks in the snow in this scene?

The shirt is different in the wood cutting scene, but i believe the shirt from the fixing truck scene and the gable film 2 are identical. I believe the filming of the day of the attack begins with this scene at 2:18, and from then on we are dealing with the events of one day. If this is correct, then the dog may also have been with them during the attack footage.

2:36 just after the you see the boys face in the wing mirror and it scans back to the woods, there is some sort of building behind the trees.
2:38 camera scans across the road (to the right hand side of screen) then back to the left.

i MAY have caught a glimpse of the drivers shirt in the last split second of this shot (which resembled gable film 2 shirt), but probably too quick to tell for sure!

2:39 At this point you can clearly see somthing heading into the woods ,the truck door opens and you can still glimpse the creature! cameraman gives chase yes I agree, I don't think they returned to the truck after this shot (all filming from then on was done on foot)...

2:56 there is a tree in the center of the screen and just to the left of it theres another tree in the back gound the creature looks like it's just behind or beside the second tree (Black shape

2:52 ground and trees

2:56 creature spotted

3:00 - 3:06 ground and trees

3:06 creature spotted again (over to the right of the screen)

3:08 main shot of creature (as stated above)


the shot at 2:56 is quite difficult to see, but it does appear that 3:06 shows the creature clearly beside/behind a tree

Hey I just had a thought about the gable film 2, and the shot where it was unclear what the evidence the camera was recording (just looked like grassy area), remember the one with a page next to it which said "GIA__"? What if it was "Giant footprint/pawprint/track"? Hmm.

[veritasvoice]

Just for comparison:

This is the paw image from the trail camera:

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4606/dogmanpaw.jpg

And this is a wolf's paw:

http://www.rebeccayork.com/images/wolf-paw-400.jpg

Even with relatively long fur, wolves don't generally get that much fur around their paws.

http://www.everythingwolf.com/shop/productimages/nikoakniadopt2009.jpg

[veritasvoice]

Also, something about the eye picture.

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/trailcam1.jpg

"A rounded eye with a dilated pupil is a sign of high arousal and aggression in a dog." (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:uLSJ-qa3rjoJ:ask.metafilter.com/84252/Stare-into-my-eyes+do+wolves+eyes+dilate&cd=24&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

And this, from the Book of Werewolves (http://books.google.com/books?id=6twOJjc_dmgC&pg=PA126&lpg=PA126&dq=do+wolves+eyes+dilate&source=bl&ots=AboHrvOYHm&sig=ipTIRgyoX0EU2F4tF0N6u5XBM4w&hl=en&ei=O-1vSoGCCNu3twfVyM39DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1), regarding Gilles de Laval, also known as Gilles de Rais (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_de_Rais):

"But on closer examination of the countenance of Gilles de Retz, contraction in the muscles of the face, nervous quivering of the mouth, spasmodic twitchings of the brows, and above all, the sinister expression of the eyes, showed there was something strange and frightful in the man. At intervals he ground his teeth like a wild beast preparing to dash upon his prey, and then his lips became so contracted, as they were drawn in and glued, as it were, to his teeth, that their very colour was indiscernible.

At times, also his eyes became fixed, and the pupils dilated to such an extent, with a sombre fire quivering in them, that the iris seemed to fill the whole orbit, which became circular, and sank back into the head. At these moments, his complexion became livid and cadaverous; his brow, especially over the nose, was covered in deep wrinkles, and his beard appeared to bristle, and to assume its bluish hues."

[size_of_light]

I agree the dark shape low down and left of centre in the shot immediately before the attack scene could be the animal ...maybe an enhancement of that might make it clearer.

A few of the ealier fast-panning shots in the woods look like the camera has been turned on quickly in order to capture something, but I'm still trying to see the animal anywhere it's been suggested to be.

A question that comes to mind is: if they tracked it into the woods for some distance but didn't get it clearly on film until the attack scene, why not?

It must have been too far ahead of them to get a shot of. So how did they know which direction to go?

If the dog/s were present I doubt they were with the humans or they'd have shown up in one of the early scenes in the woods. Knowing what dogs on a scent are like, if they were there, they would most probably have gone on up ahead which would explain why they're not seen.

So maybe the dog/s flushed the animal out, or cornered it, and their barking led the humans to the right place. That could explain why the animal is sitting in a squatting posture when the humans arrive and the attack scene first begins. What I'm thinking is another human presence off camera to the right that the animal is watching/responding to, could in fact be a dog barking incessantly at the squatting animal from a distance.

Not sure about that though, because I think at least one shot in the woods would show the dog/s( even if just off in the distance) if they were there, and the way the camera seems unsure of which direction to face gives me the vibe that the humans weren't entirely sure which way to look or go.

Also I think this animal looks aggressive enough to have attacked the dog and scared it back the way it came once and for all if it was cornered, meaning the people would have been spooked also and not gone any further.

An eerie possibility is that the animal was making non-threatening noises up ahead of them to lead them in the right direction, which could account for the fast panning shots in the woods that seem to be searching for a direction and source.

Did it lure them to a point and then ambush them? If there were no dogs present that seems likely, since it could easily have outran them and vanished into the woods never to be seen again if it had wanted to.

EDIT: Looking at it again, the shot at 1:36 (after the wood-chopping) looking out into the snow makes me think the cameraperson is filming in the direction of a sound they've heard, or are hearing. If they'd seen something move away in that direction, there would be tracks in the snow to follow.

Next shot at 1:44 is after moving further foward into the snow in the same direction. No attempt to film the snow, so again that implies it's in response to a noise, not a sighting.

I think the shot at 1:49 (on the icy road), is when the adult (because the camera height is so high) has then kept moving forward and come out on a road bordering their property. You see the dog approaching the camera with the kid riding his bike up behind it, as if the adult cut through the woods in search of the noise and the kid let the dog off, jumped on his bike, peddled out the gate and met up with the adult on the road. It looks like there are buildings in the background. The shots of the dog then sniffing the snow look to me like a dog searching for, but not finding any detectable scent

At 2:12 it looks like the dog is standing by tracks in the snow, but the cameraman doesn't seem interested in filming them, something a country person familiar with tracks in the snow would do if they were animal prints. I think these tracks are actually where the adult came out onto the road after cutting through the woods. The dog itself isn't particularly interested in sniffing them either, probably because the scent is from it's owner. When the camera then pans to follow the direction of the dog's attention, I think you see the house that the adult cut through the woods from in the background.

At 2:18 when the adult is under the hood of the car, I get the feeling that the kid who is filming asks the adult a question like "Are we going to find it?" and the adult gestures with her hands for theatrical effect to the camera as if to say "Who knows?". Feels to me like the trip is specifically about finding this thing , so maybe they've just heard or seen it again.

At 2:34 When the kid's face is caught in the wing mirror - the mirror has been purposely turned inward to catch his reflection. Normally it would be reflecting the road behind the car. A sign perhaps of wanting to record himself for posterity because this is a big moment and they're really onto something? No sign of any dog in the rear of the vehicle in this reflection, although it only shows a small view. No dogs inside the vehicle when the camera pans in the cabin either.

When the camera pans to the building behind the trees, is that their house? I don't think they travel very far from it, as the further away they got, the less likely it would be that they'd accidentally bump into the animal again.

Also, it would seem more likely that they'd jump out of the car and track the animal on foot into the woods if those woods were close to home and an area that they felt familiar and comfortable with.

A close proximity to home for the attack raises some interesting questions about the investigation in Gable Film 2, but I'll leave that for now.

[foobar]

I think the more you watch it, the more it becomes evident that a human couldn't make those movements.

Yes, a human could make those movements.

[lovestoned]

Anyone know what the pieces of paper the policeman is holding in the 2nd film say? The original film gives me the creeps!!:eek:

[forestgrump]

I've convinced myself that I know what it is now.

I'm doing the Photoshop stuff for the image enhancements and the comparisons and digging up all the best references and info I can find to try to back up my case. Might take another day or two.

In the meantime - to you and anyone else reading - for a bit of fun, drop all of your pre-conceived ideas and programming about what's possible and what's not in those images, have a look at the footage a few million more times, and make a suggestion about what you feel we're really looking at based only on your own intuition and your own innate survival instinct.


C'mon then! I've been waiting patiently until now and I'm dying to know what you think it is.

[graflok]

I don't think those are ears on its head.

They look more like horns to me.

Something like this:
http://i26.tinypic.com/5xpsmc.jpg

[size_of_light]

C'mon then! I've been waiting patiently until now and I'm dying to know what you think it is.

Sorry about the delay.

I've been looking at different angles and info on it since I said that, though I still believe the underlying animal is essentially along the same lines I was thinking.

When I say 'underlying' I mean that this thing might have the ability to shapeshift and be connected to the paranormal dimension in some way, but on close examination there does seem to be a pretty consistent body shape and facial appearance throughout the attack scene, which leads me to believe that we are looking at a physical animal with definite basic characteristics.

It seems like a puzzling combination of gorilla, bear, baboon, big cat, and wolf or dog to me, but is clearly none of those animals alone.

I think it seems vaguely familiar and still so strange to us because it displays characteristics of creatures we know today, and also reminds us of creatures from the distant past whose memories are probably buried somewhere deep in our subconscious or DNA. When we see one again there is a frustrating sense of both recognition and confusion about what we're looking at.

Anyway, I'll post some of the images and give you my original idea now, just to clear the decks. I think there's much more to it but still subscribe to the theory that it's connected to this species of animal or something very similar....

[forestgrump]

Sorry about the delay.

I've been looking at different angles and info on it since I said that, though I still believe the underlying animal is essentially along the same lines I was thinking.

When I say 'underlying' I mean that this thing might have the ability to shapeshift and be connected to the paranormal dimension in some way, but on close examination there does seem to be a pretty consistent body shape and facial appearance throughout the attack scene, which leads me to believe that we are looking at a physical animal with definite basic characteristics.

It seems like a puzzling combination of gorilla, bear, baboon, big cat, and wolf or dog to me, but is clearly none of those animals alone.

I think it seems vaguely familiar and still so strange to us because it displays characteristics of creatures we know today, and also reminds us of a creatures from the distance past who's memories are probably buried somewhere deep in our subconscious or DNA. When we see one again there is a frustrating sense of both recognition and confusion about what we're looking at.

Anyway, I'll post some of the images and give you my original idea now, just to clear the decks. I think there's much more to it but still subscribe to the theory that it's connected to this species of animal or something very similar....

Thank you. I don't mean to be pushy but curiosity is getting the better of me and I can't make head or tail of the film other than it looks pretty spooky to me and the animal defies description.

[size_of_light]

Ground sloth.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4608

Ground sloths are a diverse group of extinct sloths, in the mammalian superorder Xenarthra. They may have died out as recently as 1550 AD in Hispaniola and Cuba, but had long since been extinct on the mainland of North and South America. The term "ground sloth" is used as a reference for all extinct sloths because of the large size of the earliest forms discovered, as opposed to the extant "tree sloths."

The megalonychid ground sloths first appeared in the early Oligocene, about 35 million years ago, in southern Argentina (Patagonia). Megalonychids first reached North America by island-hopping, perhaps from the Antilles. Some lineages of megalonychids increased in size as time progressed. The first species of these were small and may have been partly tree-dwelling, whereas the Pliocene (about 5 to 2 million years ago) species were already approximately half the size of the huge Late Pleistocene Megalonyx jeffersonii from the last ice age. Some West Indian island species were as small as a large cat; their dwarf condition typified both tropical adaptation and their restricted island environment. This small size also enabled them a degree of aboreality.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4607

Megalonyx, which means "giant claw" is a widespread North American genus, lived past the close of the last (Wisconsin) glaciation, when so many large mammals died out. Remains have been found as far north as Alaska and the Yukon. Ongoing excavations at Tarkio Valley in southwest Iowa may reveal something of the familial life of Megalonyx. An adult was found in direct association with two juveniles of different ages, suggesting that adults cared for young of different generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_sloth

Ground sloths shouldn't be confused with the sluggish, tree-dwelling cousins that we're familiar with today. These animals were super-agile and in the size-range of bears and larger.

There are theories that some of them may have been carnivorous, though that theory is strongly contested.

Personally I have little time or respect for what Paleontology thinks it thinks it knows, and when you see the juvenile way some of these eggheads conduct themselves on forums when they're debating theories and asserting truths based on a few re-constructed skeletons pieced together from disparate fossil fragments spread across a continent, you'll understand why...

(continued)

[size_of_light]

Yes, a human could make those movements.

You, your mate or Usain Bolt put on a big bulky bear costume and film yourselves making those movements and covering 10 metres/yards on all fours in about three seconds flat, at one point leaping off the ground so that all four of your limbs are suspended in mid air. :D

If any of the three of you guys can do that - even without the costume - put the evidence on youtube and I'll agree with you.

I don't think those are ears on its head.

They look more like horns to me.

They look unusual but I think they are ears. In the attack scene from the full-length Gable film at about the 3:16 mark (just before the camera pulls away and the cameraman runs), when the animal leaps over the undergrowth, you can see it's left ear (right of screen) flapping in the sunlight as it jumps.

Thank you. I don't mean to be pushy but curiosity is getting the better of me and I can't make head or tail of the film other than it looks pretty spooky to me and the animal defies description.

No problem. Thanks for prompting me to do what I said I was going to do.


These are the first images of the animal seen in the film, glimpsed briefly from the vehicle as it moves across the field below the road.

You need to watch the film repeatedly to get a sense of how it moves, but I'd describe it as propelling itself forward in a loping fashion on short, very powerful hind legs, and balancing and steering itself on extremely long and thick front legs, sort of like a cross between a 'reverse kangaroo' and a gorilla.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4599

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4600

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4601

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4604

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4605

(continued)

[size_of_light]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4605

"The Gable Film: Variations" clip on youtube features a repeating image of the fluid movements the animal is really making in the above sequence, while this breakdown shows how heavy, dexterous and ungainly the animal looks while doing it.

No known species can move like this. The nearest contender I can think of is the chimpanzee. Or perhaps...

..the sloth?

Don't confuse tree-sloths in these clips with large, powerful, fast and highly-agile ground sloths that had the ability to stand and run upright, but consider the way the fellas below move and see if you find any of the motions of the strong, wiry and flexible limbs vaguely reminiscentl:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSpVW6KR8mU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtAUQOIk6SY&feature=fvw

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4603

Sloth

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4602

Giant anteater - close relative

(continued)

[supertzar]

I think the adult is a man.

[graflok]

They look unusual but I think they are ears. In the attack scene from the full-length Gable film at about the 3:16 mark (just before the camera pulls away and the cameraman runs), when the animal leaps over the undergrowth, you can see it's left ear (right of screen) flapping in the sunlight as it jumps.

You may be right but I think the apparent flapping effect may just be due to
shifts up & down in the body mass or skin of the creature, making it look like
they're flapping.

The creature has the characteristics of a predator but predators generally
don't have long floppy ears because they would be easily torn off during
the kill. They usually have small ears placed at the upper corners of the head
for maximum distance and location ability. And, those that can do it usually
fold those small ears back during a charge to protect them from being
damaged by their prey or by obstructions.

They also look too long and narrow to be ears to me and they seem to curve
up at the ends, like horns often do but ears usually don't.

That's my take anyway.

[size_of_light]

Imagine an animal moving with the sly, pensive grace of this:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4602

...combined with the heavy, rollicking agility of something like this:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4609

...and I think we might be close to something like our man.

(continued)

[size_of_light]

I'm not saying it's specifically the ground sloth Megalonyx, but it does bear a lot of striking similarities that are worth considering:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4606

(continued)

[size_of_light]

I think the adult is a man.

Could be. A lot of people on the net think it's a woman, and looking at the woodchopping scene over and over I think it might be a well-built, butch woman, because there are traces of feminine curves under the shirt.

In the scene where the adult is under the hood of the car though, the person possibly has a bit of a five-o-clock shadow, so I'm not 100% sure.

When you live in the Michigan backwoods it's probably a fine line. ;)

You may be right but I think the apparent flapping effect may just be due to
shifts up & down in the body mass or skin of the creature, making it look like
they're flapping.

The creature has the characteristics of a predator but predators generally
don't have long floppy ears because they would be easily torn off during
the kill. They usually have small ears placed at the upper corners of the head
for maximum distance and location ability. And, those that can do it usually
fold those small ears back during a charge to protect them from being
damaged by their prey or by obstructions.

They also look too long and narrow to be ears to me and they seem to curve
up at the ends, like horns often do but ears usually don't.

That's my take anyway.

I'll stick up some enhancements later on to show why I think they're ears.

Wolves are predators and have long, pointed ears...this thing is much bulkier around the neck than a wolf though, and if it's something we've never seen before maybe it's just physically impossible for it to fold it's ears back on the charge like the other predators we're accustomed to seeing.

I'll remain open-minded though to the possibility that they could be horns.

[size_of_light]

Claws of tree sloths

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4611


Claws of ground sloth:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4610

Image enhancement showing claws on Gable Film Creature:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4595

(continued)

[supertzar]

Claws of tree sloths

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4611


Claws of ground sloth:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4610

Image enhancement showing claws on Gable Film Creature:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4595

(continued)

Can't see these pics right now, but I can't imagine thinking for a second that the creature is a ground sloth.

[biblegirl]

When you live in the Michigan backwoods it's probably a fine line.

:eek::D LOL *cough*

i think it's a man, when he (?) is working under the hood of the truck the shirt appears to be unbuttoned and open in the front...

poor soul, having people dispute over whether you are a man or woman is prob not how he/she would have wanted to be remembered! doh!

[size_of_light]

I mentioned earlier in the thread that it turns out the animal is looking to the right of screen most of the time and when I realised that, the facial characteristics in each still-frame analysis all became uniform and consistent. Previously I did post a still-frame of what I thought was a gorilla-like profile, but given the above, it suddenly became obvious I was looking at it from the entirely wrong angle.

I'll post all the evidence later that this thing does have a long snout like a dog or a bear throughout the scene, and as you'll see when I post those images, a gorilla can then be completely ruled out as a possible culprit.

Ok. Ready?

Below is the one image I could find where the animal briefly looks at the cameraman directly, and from this moment I've pulled these following hi-res close ups of the actual face of the creature itself (world exclusive drumroll please....):

[size_of_light]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4597

Below is the same image, mirrored so that the obscured side of the head can be seen and the full face of the creature revealed:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4598

The comparative image on the right is a South American tree sloth. Whilst it has a flat face and the Gable Film creature definitely has a long snout, I thought the similarity was again worth noting, and if the Gable Film creature is a carnivore (as opposed to the herbivorous tree sloth) that would account for the one main difference between the two images.

[supertzar]

Why can't I see any of SOL's pics?

[size_of_light]

Why can't I see any of SOL's pics?

Anyone else having this problem?

It happened to me on another thread recently.

The images are worth seeing so please post if it's the same with you.

[size_of_light]

:eek::D LOL *cough*

i think it's a man, when he (?) is working under the hood of the truck the shirt appears to be unbuttoned and open in the front...

I hope you don't live in the Michigan area? If so, you're most definitely the exception to my rule.

By the way, don't get it into your inquisitive head to go out there looking for this thing in the woods by yourself.

He'll know you're coming from a state away and gobble you up for breakfast. ;)

[size_of_light]

Comparison of Gable Film creature's teeth and ground sloth (Megalonyx) jaw:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4613

Below is the comparison I mentioned earlier in the thread that shows the striking similarity between the hi-res image of the teeth on the creature at the beginning of the attack scene, and the teeth of the creature attacking the camera at the end of the shot. If the latter image was a fake edited in later, how did the fakers get the teeth to match so well with the real animal's at the start?

So unlikely it's safe to say it would be imposssible:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4614

As an aside, this is the seldom seen image of the creature attacking the camera, showing it's coarse hair hanging down on the right side of frame:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4615

[jojo]

blimey, this is getting very interesting!

[size_of_light]

Will pause for now...hope everyone else could see the images.

[jojo]

Will pause for now...hope everyone else could see the images.

yep, fascinating..... thanks for posting SOL

[supertzar]

Will pause for now...hope everyone else could see the images.

Still can't see shit here.

[biblegirl]

As an aside, this is the seldom seen image of the creature attacking the camera, showing it's coarse hair hanging down on the left side of frame:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4615

wow that is a great pic!

I hope you don't live in the Michigan area? If so, you're most definitely the exception to my rule.

By the way, don't get it into your inquisitive head to go out there looking for this thing in the woods by yourself.

He'll know you're coming from a state away and gobble you up for breakfast. ;)

Who me? Go out and look for dogman? lol! I'll plead the fifth on that one...

I do not live near michigan, but i might have been thinking of heading that way for a little investigation :o. I'm afraid what I plan to do is much worse than looking for dogman himself in the woods...but I won't tell you what it is just yet (see I can be mysterious too :p).

I do live in a remotish area of the country with many forests and lakes. Seeing the pawprint with the shotgun shell has just reminded me of something!

This is the strangest thing i have come across, and now that I think about it, it may belong on this weird thread. Unfortunately I did not have my camera at the time! 4 years ago i was canoeing on a local lake looking for turtles when i saw a dead animal with tan fur laying on the shore, with its head in the water, and laid on its back. At first I thought it was a deer, but as I got closer I realized it was too big to be a deer. (The animal also appeared stiff and bloated). But on closer inspection I found it had PAWS sticking straight up in the air. I was shocked!! This animal was at least twice the size of my large St. Bernard dog, what animal would have paws that could grow this large...I looked closer (trying to plug my nose the whole time :eek:) and found that it had (drumroll please) a beaver's tail! So I assumed it was a giant beaver ?? Because I don't know what else would have a beaver's tail...but looking at pics of them they have webbed feet and not quite the same feet I saw. Soooo, this thing, whatever it was, while walking through the woods WOULD have made quite the pawprint if you looked at its tracks. Hmm.

Anyone else having this problem?

It happened to me on another thread recently.

The images are worth seeing so please post if it's the same with you.

I can see all the images, but that does happen to me on other threads sometimes.

By the way SOL, that picture with the mirrored effect has an eerie human quality to it though I'm not sure why! Thanks for all the still images. Do we know if it has a tail yet? The stills from the full film you provided almost look a little wing-ish, which I also noticed on the attack footage. Probably the tail? Or the back in the middle of a shapeshift? Lol.

[supertzar]

I live in Southeastern Michigan, far from the area where the footage was filmed. I know Michigan has had its' share of monsters, though. I know one person who was up North and heard howls unlike any animal and then heard something scratching on the window. This person believed it was bigfoot.

[supertzar]

Then there is the famous 1965 Monroe Michigan monster encounter:

Blonde Gets Black Eye as "Thing" Attacks Car

Monroe, Michigan. -- What weighs more than 400 pounds, smells moldy, growls like a mad dog, and dislikes automobiles?

Answer - the Monroe County Monster. That was the latest on the "thing" that has been sighted here and there in Monroe County during the past two months by at least 16 persons, including Christine Van Acker, a 17-year-old blonde.

Miss Van Acker, who goes to a beautician school here, has a black eye she said was inflicted by the monster Friday night.

State police were checking her story and patrolling the area at night northeast of the southern Michigan city. Miss Van Acker gave this story of the encounter:

"I was driving mother, Mrs. Rose Owens, home. Suddenly there was this bump and a hairy arm grabbed me by the hair. It wasn't human or anything. I tried to go faster but the car stalled."

The girl fainted. Mrs. Owens, who jumped out of the car and ran for help, described the ordeal like this.

"The first I knew there was this bang and an arm came through the window. Christine yelled, 'Mommy, help me! Oh my God, help!' I told her to get the car going... but it stalled. The monster had his paw entwined in her hair and kept banging her head on the side of the car and I decided the best thing to do was go for help. When I got back with other people, Christine was semi-conscious, and the monster was gone."

The monster was at least seven feet tall, weighed about 400 pounds, and it had a long reach.

It was all covered with black, bristly hair, and towards the end of the hair it was silver. You couldn't see its face, there was so much hair. And it growled. It had a real growl, and definitely was not a bear. Christine said she was sure it was not a bear because bears have fur and this thing had prickly hair like thorns. She also said she was sure it was not a prankster "because nobody human would do anything like that!"

The monster sightings have occurred in Frenchtown and Ashe townships within the last 60 days. One man reported the monster climbed onto his car, and thumped on the roof and fenders before disappearing into the woods. A woman reported she saw the monster and it smelled moldy.

[biblegirl]

Then there is the famous 1965 Monroe Michigan monster encounter:

lol that report almost sounds like a joke! banging the blonde girl's head around? why is it focusing on her blondness? if it's not a joke, then :eek:


by the way supertzar, i totally thought you were british lol!

[size_of_light]

I do not live near michigan, but i might have been thinking of heading that way for a little investigation :o. I'm afraid what I plan to do is much worse than looking for dogman himself in the woods...but I won't tell you what it is just yet (see I can be mysterious too :p).

Nice knowing you. Be considerate enough to leave some ID on your corpse for fellow investigators thirty years from now. :p


I do live in a remotish area of the country with many forests and lakes. Seeing the pawprint with the shotgun shell has just reminded me of something!

This is the strangest thing i have come across, and now that I think about it, it may belong on this weird thread. Unfortunately I did not have my camera at the time! 4 years ago i was canoeing on a local lake looking for turtles when i saw a dead animal with tan fur laying on the shore, with its head in the water, and laid on its back. At first I thought it was a deer, but as I got closer I realized it was too big to be a deer. (The animal also appeared stiff and bloated). But on closer inspection I found it had PAWS sticking straight up in the air. I was shocked!! This animal was at least twice the size of my large St. Bernard dog, what animal would have paws that could grow this large...I looked closer (trying to plug my nose the whole time :eek:) and found that it had (drumroll please) a beaver's tail! So I assumed it was a giant beaver ?? Because I don't know what else would have a beaver's tail...but looking at pics of them they have webbed feet and not quite the same feet I saw. Soooo, this thing, whatever it was, while walking through the woods WOULD have made quite the pawprint if you looked at its tracks. Hmm.

"Nice beaver! "

- Leslie Nielsen in The Naked Gun

Some of the megafauna animals like these ground sloths do have beaver-like tails. I find that the furious way mainstream science tries to assert that all megafauna is extinct now to be a bit suspicous. Funny that in the earlier wikipedia article I quoted on ground sloths it said these animals probably lived in Cuba until 1550 AD (450 years ago) but THEY HAVEN'T LIVED IN NORTH AMERICA FOR AT LEAST TEN THOUSAND YEARS!!!!! :mad:

:D How the hell do they know that?

They don't. The establishment is lying to us and asking us to submit to their authority and accept what they tell us about whether it's possible creatures like this still exist today.

Interesting that megafauna was supposed to have died out in the 'extinction event' around 10,000 years ago (or BC, or whichever) which was around about the time when the alleged global cataclysmic upheaval (possible nuclear war) event that wiped out the pre-diluvian civilisations was said to occur.

For some reason I think the suppression of our history is connected to suppression of the existence of remnant megafauna today, and there could be a paranormal aspect to these creatures that connects to that past age as the Australian aboriginals have always asserted when speaking of the Dreamtime.


By the way SOL, that picture with the mirrored effect has an eerie human quality to it though I'm not sure why! Thanks for all the still images. Do we know if it has a tail yet? The stills from the full film you provided almost look a little wing-ish, which I also noticed on the attack footage. Probably the tail? Or the back in the middle of a shapeshift? Lol.

In the mirror image it looks like a sloth, or a really pissed off beaver to me :D

Then again, it might be smiling, like those witness accounts you posted earlier about the 'smiling Dogman'. :eek:

Re: the tail, I don't believe it's visible in the attack scene...what looks like a tail there in low quality clips is really a ripple of fat on the animals back caught in the sunlight.

But I think it does have a tail, based on the earlier sequence, with this still-frame being the best one I have to show of it at the moment:


http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4604

[size_of_light]

Still can't see shit here.

Try going to my Public Photo Album:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=55

The images are out of sequence and context but you might be able to see them there.

[biblegirl]

Nice knowing you. Be considerate enough to leave some ID on your corpse for fellow investigators thirty years from now. :p

Don't worry, I will be wearing my shirt that says "I am a woman, NOT a man", just so there's no confusion. Although maybe in 30 years the latest mens fad will be to wear those shirts. Doh!


For some reason I think the suppression of our history is connected to suppression of the existence of remnant megafauna today, and there could be a paranormal aspect to these creatures that connects to that past age as the Australian aboriginals have always asserted when speaking of the Dreamtime.
wow I'd like to know more about the paranormal aspect there, I have heard amazing stories of megafauna high in the mountains! But yeah, why the suppression?? I've been thinking about this a lot, my conclusion at this point is that they are afraid of us learning of dimensional reality, which would lead to us learning how to manipulate it like tptb do every day. Therefore, the only creatures which exist are the ones officially said to exist by the scientific community, and any mention of thunderbirds, bigfoot, dinosaurs, etc. will be dismissed as a hoax.

Although....what if these creatures ARE "extinct" but are coming in through some kind of a time glitch?!

My imagination has really worked overtime today!! Maybe I should take a break for a bit (we'll see how long that lasts :rolleyes:)....then to posting more dogman! :D

[size_of_light]

Although....what if these creatures ARE "extinct" but are coming in through some kind of a time glitch?!

Have some of them managed to stay physically present on the planet for thousands of years because they know exactly where the natural 'boltholes' are on earth that allow them to slip in and out of this realm of reality?

That would be a good enough reason for the establishment to actively suppress the belief in their continuing existence.

Will also be taking a break now, you've burnt me out. :p

[contador23]

Wow, interesting videos.

It reminds me of the 'Beast of Gevaudan'- an unknown wolf-beast-monster that terrorized a region of France in the 17th century, killing over a hundred people over several years.

Check it out:

http://www.newanimal.org/beastgev.htm

Composite of witness descriptions:
"The Beast is a quadruped about the size of a horse. It reminds witnesses of a bear, hyena, wolf and panther all at once. It has a long wolf-like or pig-like snout, lined with large teeth. The ears are small and round, lying close to the head. The neck is long and strong. The tail somewhat resembles the long tail of a panther, but it is so thick and strong that the Beast uses it as a weapon, knocking men and animals down with it. Anyone struck by the tail reports that it hits with considerable force. The feet of the Beast are the hardest to describe. Some say that it has cloven hooves, or that each digit is tipped with a hoof. Others say that the claws are so heavy, thick and formidable that they merely resemble hooves."

[size_of_light]

Wow, interesting videos.

It reminds me of the 'Beast of Gevaudan'- an unknown wolf-beast-monster that terrorized a region of France in the 17th century, killing over a hundred people over several years.

Check it out:

http://www.newanimal.org/beastgev.htm

Composite of witness descriptions:
"The Beast is a quadruped about the size of a horse. It reminds witnesses of a bear, hyena, wolf and panther all at once. It has a long wolf-like or pig-like snout, lined with large teeth. The ears are small and round, lying close to the head. The neck is long and strong. The tail somewhat resembles the long tail of a panther, but it is so thick and strong that the Beast uses it as a weapon, knocking men and animals down with it. Anyone struck by the tail reports that it hits with considerable force. The feet of the Beast are the hardest to describe. Some say that it has cloven hooves, or that each digit is tipped with a hoof. Others say that the claws are so heavy, thick and formidable that they merely resemble hooves."

Great first post. Welcome.

That description sounds almost identical to this thing.

[contador23]

Great first post. Welcome.

That description sounds almost identical to this thing.

Thanks :)

The video is so tantalizing, whatever it is, it doesn't fit anything i've seen before. Were it a still image i'd happily dismiss it as a bear, but the way it moves is so fluid and the agility is more reminiscent of the bounding of a big cat- if only the footage was a little longer.

This is what a bear looks like when it runs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_6GQGdyww&feature=related

It could maybe be a sort of hybrid of species- a dog and a wolf hybrid? Because of the genetics of hybrids you sometimes get offspring which display exaggerated characteristic of the parent species i.e. they may grow bigger or stronger. This thing doesn't really look especially like a dog or a wolf though so..

Have there been any recent sightings or did everything die down in the 80's?

[merla]

Wow,what a great thread! Awesome research there, size_of_light, especially getting the enhancement of the thing's head. It certainly looks like it could be some kind of not so extinct big sloth. Interesting but unrelated fact; the creators of Lost included a joke/red herring/maybe even rejected script that revealed the mysterious Island monster was a giant ground sloth in the viral game that took place between series one and two.

I get the feeling the adult is a woman because they had the flicky out curls in the front of their hair during the wood chopping, the bulky body makes it quite hard to tell for sure though. :confused:

[pinkfreud]

Thank you for that :).

Okay, nobody laugh now :p i will tell you my impressions from the full video, obviously it is just speculation on my part, but I am curious if anyone else picked up on this...it feels like the cameraman was well aware of this creature before he caught the last bit of footage


that's the impression i got too, and your gargoyle analogy is something worth thinking about.

yeah OP, this thread is killer. now you've got me googling stuff on the michigan dogman.

i don't know what the hell this is, and i'm not very good with analysing video footage especially when it isn't that clear, but when this thing moves it seems to me like a combination of a charging mountain gorilla and a grizzly.

i can see the ears are pointed; bears don't have pointed ears, and its snout seems to be pointed as well.

i'm not ruling out the paranormal aspect, but i'd be inclined to think that most of these 'paranormal creatures' could possibly be the end results of animal experimentation. remember that animal and human experiments are conducted illegally underground as well, hidden from plain view. i also remember icke mentioning in his books that the illuminati conduct horrific experiments on animals and people.

wouldn't surprise me if this creature is one such. and if you see the homepage of Michigan Dogman (http://www.michigan-dogman.com/) the image there has a striking resemblance to what we know as a werewolf.

[forestgrump]

Wow, SOL, that was way more than I expected. My initial reaction was akin to that of SuperTzar. There's no way I would have considered an 'extinct' sloth to be the culprit but the image comparisons that you have done are quite compelling.

[size_of_light]

Wow, SOL, that was way more than I expected. My initial reaction was akin to that of SuperTzar. There's no way I would have considered an 'extinct' sloth to be the culprit but the image comparisons that you have done are quite compelling.

There's more, which I'll post in the coming days. ;)

[supertzar]

lol that report almost sounds like a joke! banging the blonde girl's head around? why is it focusing on her blondness? if it's not a joke, then :eek:


by the way supertzar, i totally thought you were british lol!

I think the Beauty and the Beast angle was probably an obvious one to play up for the reporter. Anything to give a story that added appeal.

Cor! Blimey! Why would ye ever fink summit loik vat?

[whiterain]

Thanks :)

The video is so tantalizing, whatever it is, it doesn't fit anything i've seen before. Were it a still image i'd happily dismiss it as a bear, but the way it moves is so fluid and the agility is more reminiscent of the bounding of a big cat- if only the footage was a little longer.

This is what a bear looks like when it runs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn_6GQGdyww&feature=related

It could maybe be a sort of hybrid of species- a dog and a wolf hybrid? Because of the genetics of hybrids you sometimes get offspring which display exaggerated characteristic of the parent species i.e. they may grow bigger or stronger. This thing doesn't really look especially like a dog or a wolf though so..

Have there been any recent sightings or did everything die down in the 80's?

i love the gable film its a creepy fcker allright. a charging bear is a lot less lumbering though and terriffyingly quick. not saying thats what the gable shows cos i got no idea



go to about 1:15 in this to see a bear really move

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

[foobar]

You, your mate or Usain Bolt put on a big bulky bear costume and film yourselves making those movements and covering 10 metres/yards on all fours in about three seconds flat, at one point leaping off the ground so that all four of your limbs are suspended in mid air. :D

Covering 10 yards in 3 seconds is possible for a human on all fours and easy for an upright human.

What do you want to see a youtube of? A person starting squatting on all fours and jumping so that all limbs leave the floor? No superhuman abilities are required to do that.

Now at this point, you might want to watch the film again because you suspect that the height the creature jumped to was higher than humanly possible, or the off the cuff figure of 10 years in 3 seconds didn't do justice to the speed you think the creature moved at. By all means make these measurements, we'll be getting more scientific and you may be able to build a more solid case.

But you have to remember that you aren't watching something through a window here, you're watching a film, which is amenable to all kinds of editing.

It's not that I think 'it's impossible for any new creature to ever be discovered', but you've got to look at all the mundane and boring possibilities, including people playing silly beggars with costumes and editing for fun.

It's not like successful hoaxes haven't been pulled off before.

[size_of_light]

Covering 10 yards in 3 seconds is possible for a human on all fours and easy for an upright human.

What do you want to see a youtube of? A person starting squatting on all fours and jumping so that all limbs leave the floor? No superhuman abilities are required to do that.

Now at this point, you might want to watch the film again because you suspect that the height the creature jumped to was higher than humanly possible, or the off the cuff figure of 10 years in 3 seconds didn't do justice to the speed you think the creature moved at. By all means make these measurements, we'll be getting more scientific and you may be able to build a more solid case.

But you have to remember that you aren't watching something through a window here, you're watching a film, which is amenable to all kinds of editing.

It's not that I think 'it's impossible for any new creature to ever be discovered', but you've got to look at all the mundane and boring possibilities, including people playing silly beggars with costumes and editing for fun.

It's not like successful hoaxes haven't been pulled off before.

If this is a hoax, it's groundbreakingly sophisticated CGI the likes of which no one has ever seen before.

It's not a person in a furry costume.

Go on believing that if you want, but I'm not going to embarrass your eyes or your brain by pointing out how ridiculous that idea is anymore.

[biblegirl]

Have there been any recent sightings or did everything die down in the 80's?

this is the most recent recorded on that website:

During the frigid and snowy winter of 2008-09, two teenaged girls were babysitting for three small children at their neighbor's farm near Temple, Michigan. As often happens in such circumstances, when darkness fell, the girls started hearing noises outside of the house. One of them saw a shadow move across the curtains in the living room, and they were both terrified.

They quickly shut down all the lights in the house, and after a few minutes, the sounds subsided. A few minutes later, they heard a commotion that seemed to be coming from a small barn about 50 yards from the house. Knowing the building housed chickens and sheep, the girls feared that a bear had wandered on to the property seeking an easy meal.

One of the girls grabbed a digital camera and stepped out to a side porch, just in time to see what she described as "this huge dog," rounding the side of the barn. She raised the camera, and watching through the viewfinder, was shocked when the animal stood on hind legs.

"He looked right at me," she said in an interview later, "and I pushed the button just as he turned and ran away in the dark. "...
When the homeowners returned a few hours later, the girls showed them the photo. The man went out to the barn and found "a lot of prints, big ones." He intended on photographing and measuring the prints the next morning, but several inches of snow had fallen, erasing that evidence.

[click to enlarge]
http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/Temple-Small.jpg

Status: Open

Sources: Two eyewitnesses, three evidence witnesses.http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encTemple.html

[metacomet]

The dogman in the gable footage has a different gait then a bear. I can admit this now as well.

Dogs walk with the rear leg on each side going forward just before the front leg. They walk with the front and back leg of each side moving in near unison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gyf3alxH0Y

This is different to the opposing gate of other animals. This is something I noticed with the Gable figure, that it does exhibit the walking behavior of a dog - and as it enters it's sprint - the dog quality of running is there as well.

Bears don't run too much like dogs, thanks for the yellowstone footage contador.

Here is a dog running. Notice how deep he lifts his rear legs into his chest. THAT is likewise similar to the Gable subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeErz1pI_mc

Apologies if all of this has already been said.

[biblegirl]

I think the Beauty and the Beast angle was probably an obvious one to play up for the reporter.

what the crap, it's been right in front of us this whole time!!

Disney made a movie about a SHAPESHIFTING DOG MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!

does anyone else think this is WAY TO SIMILAR to the creature we've been analyzing in the gable film?!
http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/5800000/Beauty-and-the-Beast-Wallpaper-classic-disney-5818986-1024-768.jpg

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8629/2004beast.jpg (http://img268.imageshack.us/i/2004beast.jpg/)

http://herokids.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/the-beast.jpg

http://live.universal-collectibles.com/product_images02/37195-1.jpg

teeth analysis anyone?
http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/ftp/IMAGES/toons/beauty_and_the_beast_38.gif

must....calm....down....

[graflok]

this is the most recent recorded on that website:

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encTemple.html

I brought up the levels on that barn picture (click to view):
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8800/barndogman.jpg


and here's a crop around the figure:
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4848/dogman.jpg

[biblegirl]

I brought up the levels on that barn picture (click to view):
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8800/barndogman.jpg


and here's a crop around the figuree:
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4848/dogman.jpg

wow that is a million times better!

if that thing is real...OMG

[disorder2k8]

spooky

[brainfreeze]

I brought up the levels on that barn picture (click to view):
http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8800/barndogman.jpg


and here's a crop around the figure:
http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4848/dogman.jpg

That's no man in a suit :eek:

Are werewolves real?

[foobar]

If this is a hoax, it's groundbreakingly sophisticated CGI the likes of which no one has ever seen before.

No it's not, it's brief, shakey footage of something furry on all fours, and we don't know what it is yet. It certainly wouldn't represent any sort of ground-breaking special effects if it were the product of a hoax.


It's not a person in a furry costume.

You're just asserting that without demonstrating it. Try and make some measurements to demonstrate your case more scientifically like I suggested.

This is how credible cases are made.

[foobar]

That's no man in a suit :eek:

Why not ?

[brainfreeze]

Why not ?

Because it doesn't look like a man in a suit and I watched the video where the beasts shoulders roll when he runs at the cam. Also, the pic SOL posted with the thin leg, did you see that? Oh, and the teeth. Doesn't look like a man in a suit to me, it may to you but I'm not convinced.

[graflok]

You're just asserting that without demonstrating it. Try and make some measurements to demonstrate your case more scientifically like I suggested.

This is how credible cases are made.

Get yourself a bear costume and have someone video you running at the
camera like the figure in the video and show us what you mean about
a man in a suit. Show us what you are saying.

You need to demonstrate your case more scientifically.
This is how credible cases are made.

[size_of_light]

It certainly wouldn't represent any sort of ground-breaking special effects if it were the product of a hoax.

Then this should be an easy job for you: Post a clip you know of from any source - movie, tv, experimental etc. with comparable CGI.


You're just asserting that without demonstrating it. Try and make some measurements to demonstrate your case more scientifically like I suggested.

This is how credible cases are made.

What are you going to be doing, by the way, while I'm taking all these measurements for you?

Videoing yourself covering the distance in your bear costume?

[biblegirl]

Just for comparison:

This is the paw image from the trail camera:

http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4606/dogmanpaw.jpg

And this is a wolf's paw:

http://www.rebeccayork.com/images/wolf-paw-400.jpg

Even with relatively long fur, wolves don't generally get that much fur around their paws.


Wow good point there, about the fur around the paw. That one from the trail camera with the paw is holding the deer leg is somehow disturbingly human, almost as if someone put on a furry glove and held it like that....bleh

Also, something about the eye picture.

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/trailcam1.jpg

"A rounded eye with a dilated pupil is a sign of high arousal and aggression in a dog." (http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:uLSJ-qa3rjoJ:ask.metafilter.com/84252/Stare-into-my-eyes+do+wolves+eyes+dilate&cd=24&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)


I wonder if the aggression had to do with the camera? Didn't the creature knock it down just after? Thanks for posting, this is good stuff :).

[biblegirl]

Then something very odd happened. QuinlanOUR12 pulled the video from YouTube and closed his account. The only explanation was a cryptically worded message sent to another YouTube user, which contained an anagram that spelled out “DNR Coverup.” A few days later, users who had posted replacement copies of GF2 began receiving messages from YouTube that they had violated the Terms of Use. One by one, the copies also vanished from YouTube. As of this writing, one copy remains: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw (Be warned: this film is very graphic and disturbing. It is not for the faint of heart.)

Combined, all of these factors began to make GF2 look pretty suspect. That is, until yesterday. Without going into detail, it seems that GF2 has gotten the attention of authorities, which led them back to us. I was asked to temporarily halt the download of The Gable Film from the website, and turn over the original 8mm film so it could “be looked into.” I explained that very little is left of the original film, much of it having disintegrated in the digitizing projector, but they still wanted the remains.

What this all means I can’t be sure. It may be an official investigation, or simply a check to satisfy someone’s curiosity. Either way, I hope it leads to something conclusive.
http://michigan-dogman.com/wordpress/

[biblegirl]

Something I wanted to point out about Gable film 2: You can see a building (house?) at 1:06 for a brief flash, just after the corpse is filmed. It doesn't seem to be far from the corpse?

Watching it again, it seems like some pieces of even our abbreviated version of this film, are missing. Like just after filming the camera in the grass, it pans to a white page laid out on the ground, then cuts to the two pages on either side of the (track?). After this it cuts a couple more times then ends abruptly. Hmm.

[forestgrump]

Where is he?

I've seen this photo when I was researching the other stuff, with an overlay showing how the silhouette was identical to the shape of one of the creatures from the Chronicles of Narnia film poster or something, but I'll still be damned if I can see anything in that picture at all.

I have found a picture of some Narnia concept work on this site http://www.narniafans.com/archives/tag/knb-efx

There is a picture that is very similar but its not identical by any means even when mirrored. You couldn't overlay one on the other and show them to match.

Of course this assumes that this was the picture you were talking about, but it is the only one that I can find that is vaguely similar to the picture on the Michigan Dogman site on any Narnia artwork.

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu79/Spinceria/normal_pc_werewolf_9-24-07.jpg

[veritasvoice]

Check this film out. Not directly related, but something to see.

http://www.loadedparanormal.com/viewtopic.php?t=3553

This is presumably CCTV footage from a motorway in Britain, given the name "Wessex Way". I'm guessing that's the main dual carriageway out of Bournemouth?

Again, this doesn't look like CGI, though I'd have to ask - where did this footage originate? And what's everyone's opinion of this creature?

[biblegirl]

Again, this doesn't look like CGI, though I'd have to ask - where did this footage originate? And what's everyone's opinion of this creature?

geez that thing is fast! how can i watch it in slow motion?

[runlikehell]

Hi there i visited my friend who had a few old cameras.

He has unforunatly parted with a few since i last seen them, and only has one left.

I got a few snap shots of the remaining camera below and showed him the footage.

He has a big screen TV and has him computer hooked up to it so we watched the Gable film on that (a couple of times) unfortunatly he had a few visitors and i couldent spend the time i wanted with the camera and the youtube Gable film footage.

His thoughts on are it was a gorillia, someone esle though it was a bear, another wasent sure, ect.

I couldent get much info out of him on it because he had vistors and the music, people talking, ect was bit loud.

But i think this is an older model (Mid to late 60s) to the one seen in the Gable film 2, but that's all i could come up with.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=349&pictureid=4641

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=349&pictureid=4639

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=349&pictureid=4638

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=349&pictureid=4637

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=349&pictureid=4635

[rynath]

geez that thing is fast! how can i watch it in slow motion?

Start the vid first, then hit "controls" on the bottom of the vid and select slo-mo.

[graflok]

His thoughts on are it was a gorillia, someone esle though it was a bear, another wasent sure, ect.


Here are some videos of gorillas in motion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5jZhxm77Yc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb47JA3Kln4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJKpqb8ElFQ

Doesn't look very similar to me.

[disorder2k8]

hmm check this out

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780653/

a bit random, but I do know that hollywood likes playing with us as to movie tie in websites and hints

[foobar]

Then this should be an easy job for you: Post a clip you know of from any source - movie, tv, experimental etc. with comparable CGI.

What are you going to be doing, by the way, while I'm taking all these measurements for you?

Dude, you're arguing that some shakey, grainy footage is evidence of some hitherto unknown creature that attacks humans and lives in Michigan. The balance of proof rests with people who think it's not a hoax.


Videoing yourself covering the distance in your bear costume?

I don't have a bear costume. You're being defensive because you know that your comments about various things being impossible don't stand up to real investigation, so you're just refusing to do it.

If you need to believe science fiction when a simple human cheeky sense of humour which has cropped up again and again in numerous hoaxes could be the explanation, like, nobody can stop you. But what do you hope to achieve?

[pinkfreud]

http://i635.photobucket.com/albums/uu79/Spinceria/normal_pc_werewolf_9-24-07.jpg

looks a lot like the cropped pic graflok posted. and it's creepy.

i'm seriously beginning to think those underground bases are tampering with genes, mating different species and 'releasing' these creatures into the wild- to a much larger extent than we were aware of.

[biblegirl]

looks a lot like the cropped pic graflok posted. and it's creepy.

i'm seriously beginning to think those underground bases are tampering with genes, mating different species and 'releasing' these creatures into the wild- to a much larger extent than we were aware of.

yeah someone mentioned an escapee from nightmare hall, could very well be something like that! if they are releasing things like this intentionally, that could be what organizations like the DNR are covers for...I read an extensive description on the "wolf introduction" program from the Wisconsin DNR, and these nonsense programs get so much funding!

[truth finder]

Because it doesn't look like a man in a suit and I watched the video where the beasts shoulders roll when he runs at the cam. Also, the pic SOL posted with the thin leg, did you see that? Oh, and the teeth. Doesn't look like a man in a suit to me, it may to you but I'm not convinced.


If u own a dog play fetch with it and watch the way it runs and turns u will be surprised i was playing fetch with my puppy and is very simular.....
What i'm saying it is very canine moving...


I don't think its a man in a suit you try and copy that its not possible....

[truth finder]

Dude, you're arguing that some shakey, grainy footage is evidence of some hitherto unknown creature that attacks humans and lives in Michigan. The balance of proof rests with people who think it's not a hoax.



I don't have a bear costume. You're being defensive because you know that your comments about various things being impossible don't stand up to real investigation, so you're just refusing to do it.

If you need to believe science fiction when a simple human cheeky sense of humour which has cropped up again and again in numerous hoaxes could be the explanation, like, nobody can stop you. But what do you hope to achieve?


No one is asking u to believe this is what people believe (me included), just keep ur negative opinons to ur self he has the right to believe it like u have the right not to....

[size_of_light]

Dude, you're arguing that some shakey, grainy footage is evidence of some hitherto unknown creature that attacks humans and lives in Michigan. The balance of proof rests with people who think it's not a hoax.



I don't have a bear costume. You're being defensive because you know that your comments about various things being impossible don't stand up to real investigation, so you're just refusing to do it.

If you need to believe science fiction when a simple human cheeky sense of humour which has cropped up again and again in numerous hoaxes could be the explanation, like, nobody can stop you. But what do you hope to achieve?

You're a strange one. Don't work for the DNR do you?

I'm not arguing anything. Don't care whether you think it's a hoax or not.

If it was clearly a film of a bear attack, you'd look ridiculous claiming it could be hoaxed footage.

You look ridiculous now claiming it's hoaxed footage simply because you're alarmed by the unknown.

I've spent my whole life around animals and I can instantly tell the difference between one and some guy jumping around in a suit. I'm not interested in continuing that discussion with you at all. Frankly I find it embarassing if you genuinely think it's possible there's a human in there.

As for CGI - post a comparable example from a big budget film if you're so confident the technology is that sophisticated. You wont because you can't. And if you do come up with something you think fits the bill, also include an explanation of how and why that state-of-the-art technology was applied to an obscure, unimportant film shot back in the 70s (according to a Kodak specialist).

And then when you're done I'll show you how ludicrous the comparison is between the CGI example you've posted and this clip.

To be honest I think you're just here to argue for argument's sake. If so, just admit it and move on. I'm really not that interested.

[foobar]

No one is asking u to believe this is what people believe (me included), just keep ur negative opinons to ur self he has the right to believe it like u have the right not to....

It's not about having a 'right' to believe something. This is a forum, for debate. If people are interested in the truth, they ought to be interested in rational enquiry. It could be something real or interesting, it could be a hoax. Truth seeking isn't about discounting plausible possibilities because you don't want them to be real, it's about weighing up all the possibilities.

[foobar]

I'm not arguing anything. Don't care whether you think it's a hoax or not.

Yes you are arguing something. You're asserting this can't be a hoax and then refusing to engage in any kind of scientific analysis of your claims.


If it was clearly a film of a bear attack, you'd look ridiculous claiming it could be hoaxed footage.

Not if it turned out to be a hoax.


You look ridiculous now claiming it's hoaxed footage simply because you're alarmed by the unknown.

I'm not alarmed by the unknown, I'm just pointing out to you that you don't have a very strong scientific case that this 'definitely isn't' a hoax as you keep asserting.


I've spent my whole life around animals and I can instantly tell the difference between one and some guy jumping around in a suit. I'm not interested in continuing that discussion with you at all. Frankly I find it embarassing if you genuinely think it's possible there's a human in there.

You're going to be so embarrassed when you find out what this footage really is.

[forestgrump]

It's not about having a 'right' to believe something. This is a forum, for debate. If people are interested in the truth, they ought to be interested in rational enquiry. It could be something real or interesting, it could be a hoax. Truth seeking isn't about discounting plausible possibilities because you don't want them to be real, it's about weighing up all the possibilities.

True. But you can't prove that it is a hoax anymore than I can prove its real. If you insist on maintaining that it is a hoax then surely the burden of proof, eg. video comparison of a man in a suit that keeps on being mentioned, lies with yourself? Otherwise the 'debate' is just an exercise in futility.

[size_of_light]

Yes you are arguing something. You're asserting this can't be a hoax and then refusing to engage in any kind of scientific analysis of your claims.

You're weird.


You're going to be so embarrassed when you find out what this footage really is.

Inside knowledge?

Or just full of shit?

[brainfreeze]

You're weird.



Inside knowledge?

Or just full of shit?

Hey, can I just say thank you to you SOL for the break down and clips you posted in trying to make sense of this vid - and Biblegirl too.

Even if the vid is a hoax after all you showed us that it's no man in a suit. It would be interesting to know what animal it is though. No cause for embaressment or humiliation because you took a deeper look at something that doesn't make sense. Thanks.

[size_of_light]

Hey, can I just say thank you to you SOL for the break down and clips you posted in trying to make sense of this vid - and Biblegirl too.

Even if the vid is a hoax after all you showed us that it's no man in a suit. It would be interesting to know what animal it is though. No cause for embaressment or humiliation because you took a deeper look at something that doesn't make sense. Thanks.

Your welcome brainfreeze, and plenty more images still to post when I get around to it.

I don't see how it could be a hoax and if it turned out to be one that would be fascinating in it's own right - I just can't be bothered arguing kindergarten points with numbnuts at the moment.

[foobar]

True. But you can't prove that it is a hoax anymore than I can prove its real.

If you read carefully, I simply asked him to do further research to demonstrate his claim. I pointed out alternative possible explanations. Refusing to countenance more mundane explanations just makes you less credible.

[foobar]

Inside knowledge?

Or just full of shit?

Go back and examine your own claims 'a person can't jump like that', 'a person in a suit couldn't move that fast'. Well, couldn't they ? You tried putting some numbers to your claims. Do you want to try in more detail?

This is why real scientists laugh at people like you. It's not because they're part of some coverup, or just putting their fingers in their ears. It's because you don't have a basic grasp of what constitutes rigorous proof.

[size_of_light]

Go back and examine your own claims 'a person can't jump like that', 'a person in a suit couldn't move that fast'. Well, couldn't they ? You tried putting some numbers to your claims. Do you want to try in more detail?

This is why real scientists laugh at people like you. It's not because they're part of some coverup, or just putting their fingers in their ears. It's because you don't have a basic grasp of what constitutes rigorous proof.

:D You're totally mad on these numbers!

You come up with some numbers, I don't know what numbers you're talking about and I don't need any numbers to know it's not a man in a suit. Can you really not see that? :D

[brainfreeze]

Look, the next time I come in here I want to see you in a white coat with petree dishes, test tubes and microscope. If you're going to disect this vid out of curiousity and post an opinion the least you can do is present it like you earn a living from this, lest you show yourself up as some ignoramous and not the enquiring mind you are.

Got that?

Good.

Now get undress!

:cool:


Foobar, there is nowt wrong with pretty sound speculation to start, which I guess is where most scientist start, slowly working to the point of proof, is there?

[foobar]

:D You're totally mad on these numbers!

You come up with some numbers, I don't know what numbers you're talking about

You said '10 yards in 3 seconds' at first, to try and underscore that it couldn't be a human in a suit. I calmly pointed out to you that a human on all fours can cover 10 yards in 3 seconds.

I don't need any numbers to know it's not a man in a suit.

That's why you're not being scientific. You're relying on flawed intuition which is subconsciously biased by the natural desire to want the world to contain exciting things.

Can you really not see that? :D

I just don't jump to wild conclusions in the same way you do. I don't know for sure what it is, but you want to rule out plausible possibilities without doing basic analysis. It could easily be viral marketing for a movie. You can't demonstrate that it's not CGI or a man in a suit by simply repeating 'It's not a man in a suit!' in an adamant tone.

[foobar]

Foobar, there is nowt wrong with pretty sound speculation to start, which I guess is where most scientist start, slowly working to the point of proof, is there?

The speculation so far is ruling out plausible possibilities without doing very basic analysis. People are acting like they want this to be evidence of a cryptid, or something supernatural.

That's not how science proceed. Real scientists know they are just as vulnerable to this kind of thinking as anybody else, and that's why the scientific method exists.

[forestgrump]

Look, the next time I come in here I want to see you in a white coat with petree dishes, test tubes and microscope. If you're going to disect this vid out of curiousity and post an opinion the least you can do is present it like you earn a living from this, lest you show yourself up as some ignoramous and not the enquiring mind you are.

Got that?

Good.

Now get undress!

:cool:


Foobar, there is nowt wrong with pretty sound speculation to start, which I guess is where most scientist start, slowly working to the point of proof, is there?
Lol. Seconded. Take a step back for a minute to reevaluate, Foobar. I'm sure you're not really as arrogant and righteous as you sound at the moment.

[brainfreeze]

So, what appeared to be a case number on the film tin, has anyone called the relevent authorities (what area did this happen in again) to see if they have record of a cold case that corresponds with the number on the tin?

Forget science and go to the source perhaps?

[foobar]

Lol. Seconded. Take a step back for a minute to reevaluate, Foobar. I'm sure you're not really as arrogant and righteous as you sound at the moment.

It only sounds like that to you because you don't want to think about the other alternatives. Listen to the 'paranormal' side of the debate here: 'it just is', 'that's ridiculous', 'no human could'. People are confusing 'really wanting something cool and paranormal to be true' with 'being open minded'. They aren't the same thing.

[size_of_light]

I just don't jump to wild conclusions in the same way you do. I don't know for sure what it is, but you want to rule out plausible possibilities without doing basic analysis. It could easily be viral marketing for a movie. You can't demonstrate that it's not CGI or a man in a suit by simply repeating 'It's not a man in a suit!' in an adamant tone.

There's nothing in the film to indicate it's anything other than footage of an unidentified animal.

Suggestions that it could be a man in a suit or CGI are only being floated because it's such an odd-looking creature. You need to show evidence that can support either one of those possible explanations, not the other way around.

Take measurements, numbers etc...

If you're really that blind that you can't tell the difference between an animal and a man pretending to be an animal, that's a little project for you to waste your own time on.

And if you want to demonstrate that it's possible with CGI, you'll need to post me a clip with comparably seamless and realistic digital effects.

If you reply to this, don't repeat yourself again. This is going nowhere.

[forestgrump]

It only sounds like that to you because you don't want to think about the other alternatives. Listen to the 'paranormal' side of the debate here: 'it just is', 'that's ridiculous', 'no human could'.
Not really. I'm quite prepared to accept its something mundane, as I'm sure are others. It could turn out to be a bear or another known animal but I just don't think it will turn out to be a person. I would happily accept any evidence that you have to the contrary but since you don't I guess I'll just muddle along. I'm quite aware of the reasons for scientific methodology etc. but
I'm afraid I left my laboratory at home today so I'm just going to have to make do with innocent speculation and I speculate that you could not make the movement that we see the subject of the film make. Prove me wrong?

[foobar]

There's nothing in the film to indicate it's anything other than footage of an unidentified animal.

Suggestions that it could be a man in a suit or CGI are only being floated because it's such an odd-looking creature. You need to show evidence that can support either one of those possible explanations, not the other way around.

Take measurements, numbers etc...

The onus of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. Insisting on a cryptid from such shakey footage is an extraordinary claim. Shakey footage with poor image quality is a great way of disguising cheap special effects.


If you're really that blind that you can't tell the difference between an animal and a man pretending to be an animal, that's a little project for you to waste your own time on.

And if you want to demonstrate that it's possible with CGI, you'll need to post me a clip with comparably seamless and realistic digital effects.

If you reply to this, don't repeat yourself again. This is going nowhere.

I could post any number of scenes from movies which would look even more convincing, were you not to have foreknowledge that they were movies.

[size_of_light]

I could post any number of scenes from movies which would look even more convincing, were you not to have foreknowledge that they were movies.

Do it.

[graflok]

I could post any number of scenes from movies which would look even more convincing, were you not to have foreknowledge that they were movies.

Yes, do it. I'd like to see them too.

[foobar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsgl-AQ8E_Q

You've been watching viral marketing for this movie.

[biblegirl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsgl-AQ8E_Q

You've been watching viral marketing for this movie.

wow that's 3 minutes 5 seconds of my life i'll never get back :rolleyes:

[graflok]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsgl-AQ8E_Q

You've been watching viral marketing for this movie.

Well, you've shown evidence that Benicio Del Toro is an over rated actor
but I see no evidence of your viral marketing claim. Got any?

And, I'd still like to see you make good on this claim of yours:


I could post any number of scenes from movies which would look even more convincing, were you not to have foreknowledge that they were movies.

[ytch]

Thanks s.o.l. for all the effort.

And I agree, you can intuitivly say it´s not a man in a suit,
my first thought "well, obviously a misplaced gorilla,
but there are truly valid points to rule that out.

And yeah, I desperatly wanna see foobar and some of his friends
running around in furry costumes trying to create some similiar footage!

DO IT, PO- LEASE!

And you said you COULD post a bunch of CGI- scenes
which show that it´s possible to create something that original.

I wanna see!

All CGI footage I´ve seen so far, and I´ve seen a fair share,
was imediatly decoded as "plastic- image, not real"
by both my guts and brain,

so please AMAZE me and keep your promise to post your share of "prove".

Or let´s just leave this kindergarden- level of communication.

Thanks,

Love & Laughter,

y

[gripit]

Wow, been away for a while. Good work size_of_light, biblegirl etc. :) I'll look into it further this week.

I've read some other forums on the subject. Many people believe it's a dog in a suit. I suppose that's possible, but I ain't buying it.

[size_of_light]

Many people believe it's a dog in a suit.

:D Do they really?

To what crazy lengths are people prepared to go to before they simply acknowledge that they're viewing an animal they're not previously familiar with? :D

[disorder2k8]

I think its a broom in a horse in a man in a woman in a dogsuit

[graflok]

Like this?

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6686/imagesdog20suit.jpg

[gripit]

:D Do they really?

To what crazy lengths are people prepared to go to before they simply acknowledge that they're viewing an animal they're not previously familiar with? :D

Yup, dog in a suit, lol! I surfed a few forums :) Plenty of ppl say Wolverine as well, but as I pointed out earlier, it looks to be much bigger than one of those vicious animals. Others say unreported gorilla zoo escape. Also, it's legal to have exotic animals in America, so others think it's some sort of cat or something. Me, I'll go with Wolverine/Bear/Gorilla/Dogman :) ...

I think its a broom in a horse in a man in a woman in a dogsuit

...or that! ;)

[graflok]

Wolverines have a bushy tail and distinctive markings:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2184/wolverinex.jpg

[biblegirl]

hey what do you guys make of this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrZuF4gKT4

[graflok]

Even if it is a wire mesh, it wouldn't be out of place in a forest. It could be
part of an an old chicken coop or fence, etc.

And, there's no assertion that it was taken "in the middle of a forest" anyway.
It could be near a road or house, etc. Lots of people in rural areas live in homes
adjoining undeveloped areas that look like that.

The fact that a piece of wire mesh may appear in the frame is irrelevant and
doesn't prove or disprove anything.

[size_of_light]

hey what do you guys make of this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDrZuF4gKT4

Note that when embossed, the 'mesh' on the left of frame doesn't overlap the tongue and teeth. So the animal must have a chicken coop inside it's mouth.

It's the sinews and fibres in the cheek of the animal on the left, and the hair around it's jaw on the right.

People are desperate or mad if they want to extrapolate that into 'mesh on a dog kennel'.

[graflok]

The animal could also be wearing a collar or garment of some sort, which is
a bizarre thought.

[supertzar]

I thought the webbed effect of the inside of the mouth (?) looked strange when I watched the video too.

[size_of_light]

It is webbing, or fleshy ridges inside the animals mouth. You can see that it runs back in concentric rings beyond and behind the stump of the tongue, so the mesh theory is out.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=55&pictureid=4768

The outer ring reminds me of the fleshy serations dogs have inside their jowls.

[kerttu]

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_arizonat_trailcam.html
Lepard man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXOh0LPgaA4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw&feature=related
His hand left hand disappears 0:58, I still think that it is the Axemans body,
Axeman were in part 1

This is how charging bear looks like, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6GcWhlGF3o&feature=related

Sorry for my bad english, still bit rusty

[runlikehell]

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_arizonat_trailcam.html
Lepard man

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/AZ-trailcam1.jpg

http://www.michigan-dogman.com/images/AZ-trailcam2.jpg


That could have been the Leopard man of Skye!!!

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01015/leopard_1015688f.jpg

Tom Leppard, whose entire body is covered in leopard-spot tattoos, lived in a ruined bothy on the Scottish island of Skye for 20 years, living with no electricity and no furniture.

The Leopard Man, who spent £5,500 on tattoos used to have to canoe three miles for his weekly shopping, but he has now moved from his remote stretch of shoreline near Kyleakin after admitting he was getting too old.


Now 73, Mr Leppard, an ex-special forces soldier, said: "I was perfectly happy in the bothy but I'm like everyone else - I'm getting too old for that kind of life.

"I had to canoe to Kyle once a week for shopping and it was getting too hard for me - I was one big wave away from disaster. It's a pretty nasty stretch of water.

"About six weeks ago a friend with a boat offered to take me off and I just decided there and then to go."

Mr Leppard, originally from London, held the title of world's most tattooed man until recently, when he was overtaken by Lucky Diamond Rich from New Zealand.

He said: "I've loved every minute and when you're covered in leopard tattoos you certainly get noticed - I became a bit of a tourist attraction on Skye.

"But all I want now is peace and quiet and just to relax a bit more. I can walk to the local shop instead of canoeing.

"I might go back to the bothy one day for a look around if somebody offered me a lift but it would be just out of curiosity - those days are behind me now."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3265474/Tattooed-Leopard-Man-leaves-hermit-lifestyle-behind.html

[biblegirl]

not sure which leopard man i'd be more sceered of...

[papiowhisperer]

Enjoy your next bushwalk in the Wisconsin backwoods and don't forget to pack the bazooka. ;) :p
Way more than going after boar in the rainforest. I'd want something substantially hotter than a Ruger Redhawk pistol in .44 mag. I'm thinking a Saiga 12. (mechanically, an AK-47 built as a 12 gauge shotgun) Recoil is not even too bad due to the design. 40 round magazines available too.

C'mon that thing wasn't coming in peace!

I'm kinda thinking he was time/shape shifting too, the way he hovered and glided with limbs aplomb maybe...

edit: carrying a big gun while hiking around there would be advisable.

[papiowhisperer]

This Vid Was Disturbing.



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

[papiowhisperer]

This is kinda interersting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6GcWhlGF3o&feature=related

Sorry for my bad english, still bit rusty

[supertzar]

http://www.absolutemichigan.com/dig/michigan/weird-wednesday-the-dogman-in-washtenaw-county/



Extremely interesting to hear of the Dogman in my town!

I heard a story related by the sister of a woman who had a terrifying encounter in Utah. She and some companions pulled into a gas station in a remote area. While they were there they noticed a dog looking at them funny. As they left the dog followed their car onto the road. They picked up speed on the highway and the dog was still on their tail only now it was running on two legs behind them. In a panic the driver floored it and finally outpaced the thing, but not before it took some swipes at the car with its' front paws, scratching the paint right off the trunk. It gives me the chills thinking about it.

[lucyfer1111]

I'm so glad you had picked this topic up. I was very very much intrigued by this about almost a year ago (or was it this spring...) when I first found out about the film. Still can't get it out of my mind. I have never seen anything so totally strange. My first impression about the creature was that it is a gorilla, but when I kept watching the video a couple of times it became clear at least to me that it is not. I keep getting bad vibes from this and am not so confident to go outside when it's dark -thank god I live in Finland :p.

Here is a link to a still frame and slow-motion video of that same creature (allegedly) moving in the field, some time before the attack:

http://www.ghosttheory.com/crypto/gable-film-anomalous-entity/

[size_of_light]

I keep getting bad vibes from this and am not so confident to go outside when it's dark -thank god I live in Finland :p.


That reminds me...must post my findings on the Helsinki Werewolf...

...makes this guy look like Paddington Bear and...

W-what?!!! :eek:

You haven't heard abou...:confused:

You're still venturing outdoors after dark there in Finland?!!!! :eek:

[lucyfer1111]

Lol :D. Well I live far from Helsinki. Actually I live almost in the middle of a forest where there reportedly has been bears, wolves, lynx and, of course, deer and elg :). But most of the view is field, though, and I am not the closest neighbour here to the woods -which gives me at least some comfort :p.

I must admit that when I first heard about the film and had been spending the night watching various versions of it, I freaked out without any reason at all when I went outside smoking. Had to come back inside pretty soon.

[size_of_light]

Lol :D. Well I live far from Helsinki.

I should have checked a map and found a more plausible place name! :D


I must admit that when I first heard about the film and had been spending the night watching various versions of it, I freaked out without any reason at all when I went outside smoking. Had to come back inside pretty soon.


Yeah, the film will do that to you. I've taken a break from it for a while: watching it over and over and over can get a bit depressing and spooky.

...I'm focusing on the Baboon-Man of Oulun Lääni these days.

[size_of_light]

Extremely interesting to hear of the Dogman in my town!

I heard a story related by the sister of a woman who had a terrifying encounter in Utah. She and some companions pulled into a gas station in a remote area. While they were there they noticed a dog looking at them funny. As they left the dog followed their car onto the road. They picked up speed on the highway and the dog was still on their tail only now it was running on two legs behind them. In a panic the driver floored it and finally outpaced the thing, but not before it took some swipes at the car with its' front paws, scratching the paint right off the trunk. It gives me the chills thinking about it.

:eek:

[supertzar]

:eek:

I'm serious, that is what I felt like when she told me. She said her sister never makes things up and she was totally serious when she told her.

[size_of_light]

I'm serious, that is what I felt like when she told me. She said her sister never makes things up and she was totally serious when she told her.

Kinda unnerving to know that it could just appear like a normal dog walking around and you wouldn't even think there was anything unusual, and then BANG! he's sprinting after your car like Usain Bolt in a fur coat!

[supertzar]

Kinda unnerving to know that it could just appear like a normal dog walking around and you wouldn't even think there was anything unusual, and then BANG! he's sprinting after your car like Usain Bolt in a fur coat!

When I read about the skinwalkers in Utah it made me think that's what it must be.

[veritasvoice]

Extremely interesting to hear of the Dogman in my town!

I heard a story related by the sister of a woman who had a terrifying encounter in Utah. She and some companions pulled into a gas station in a remote area. While they were there they noticed a dog looking at them funny. As they left the dog followed their car onto the road. They picked up speed on the highway and the dog was still on their tail only now it was running on two legs behind them. In a panic the driver floored it and finally outpaced the thing, but not before it took some swipes at the car with its' front paws, scratching the paint right off the trunk. It gives me the chills thinking about it.

That's scary as hell; sounds like a pretty classic skinwalker encounter.

[biblegirl]

"My uncle Dave made these casts about 30 years ago. Sadly, he passed away in Jan. 2008 so I can't get any more details directly from the source. But as our family 'legend' goes he was bow hunting near St. Helen when he heard loud noises in the brush, like heavy footsteps. When he stopped to listen the noises stopped. When he started walking again it sounded like something big was stalking him.

My uncle was an outdoorsman all his life and had no fear of the northern woods, until then. He ran to his car as fast as he could and left, then returned the next day to find the prints & make the casts. The DNR was unable to identify the tracks."

http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3512/largetrack1.jpg (http://img529.imageshack.us/i/largetrack1.jpg/)

The casts were made - quite ingeniously - using expanding foam insulation from a spray can. The family brought the foam casts to me to examine and photograph. They appear genuine. There are dermal identations, hair impressions, and very distinct claws. The best formed of the casts measures just under 6 inches in diameter. The pad and toe impressions are very rounded and very deep, suggesting either a heavy animal, or one that was bearing all of its weight on two legs.

As stated, the DNR could not, or would not, identify the tracks. After viewing these images, a wildlife expert told me simply, "They are not from a bear, they are not from a cat, and they are too big for a wolf."http://www.michigan-dogman.com/01_encStHelen.html

[metacomet]

Thank you for sleuthing biblegirl, so much nicer to have the interesting reports brought to us like that.

[size_of_light]

Here's a head-on enhancement of your mad mate captured in mid-air leaping over the small bush as he charges towards the camera.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=318&pictureid=5045

Dogman (or Ground Sloth?!) indeed.

[supertzar]

I can never see your pics anymore, sol. :(

[size_of_light]

I can never see your pics anymore, sol. :(

:confused:

That sucks.

I'm not doing anything differently.

Here's the link to the image in my photo album:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=318&pictureid=5045

[supertzar]

:confused:

That sucks.

I'm not doing anything differently.

Here's the link to the image in my photo album:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/album.php?albumid=318&pictureid=5045

Well, I am signed in, but clicking the link prompted me to sign in again, then it told me "invalid album specified." I'll forward this to a mod and see if this problem can be solved.

[size_of_light]

Good idea.

I don't know why it's not working for you.