View Single Post
Old 23-07-2009, 02:28 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)

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

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.


While the stablised footage...

...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:

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.

Last edited by size_of_light; 24-07-2009 at 04:48 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote