Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Paranormal & Mysteries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 22-07-2009, 06:54 PM   #21
runlikehell
Inactive
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 7,280
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

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

Last edited by runlikehell; 22-07-2009 at 07:13 PM.
runlikehell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 06:57 PM   #22
thelyran
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
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.......it's a schizophrenic shapeshifterdoes'nt know what it wants to be...if it goes reptile,please let me know,love Ya Man
  Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 08:05 PM   #23
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

New stabilised version:

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.

Last edited by limelady; 10-11-2009 at 07:37 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-07-2009, 09:03 PM   #24
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

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/ga...-others-react/
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 08:10 AM   #25
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
As the animal moves it's head to sniff the air, the pointed muzzle is seen.



***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.

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 10:06 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 09:10 AM   #26
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

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


Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 03:33 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 10:12 AM   #27
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
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.


***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).


Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 02:45 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 02:28 PM   #28
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

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:

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.



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=INMIq...layer_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=l5jZh...layer_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=INMIq...layer_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.

Last edited by size_of_light; 24-07-2009 at 04:48 AM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 02:41 PM   #29
supertzar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 13,455
Likes: 2,995 (1,865 Posts)
Default

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

Last edited by supertzar; 23-07-2009 at 02:44 PM.
supertzar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 02:55 PM   #30
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
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.

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 02:56 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:41 PM   #31
truth finder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
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=FBkTQ...eature=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.
truth finder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:43 PM   #32
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truth finder View Post
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!

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 03:44 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:45 PM   #33
truth finder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

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.



I'm the same you cant just dismiss the footage as a hoax. Maybe they should do a monster Quest there....
truth finder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:45 PM   #34
truth finder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
Totally agree.

By the way -- thanks for ruining my life with this thread!

Lol it gave you something to do...lol
truth finder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:47 PM   #35
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truth finder View Post
Lol it gave you something to do...lol
I'm embarrassed to admit you're right.

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

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 03:48 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 03:56 PM   #36
metacomet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 23 (14 Posts)
Default

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 .

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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 04:01 PM   #37
metacomet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 23 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
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.
metacomet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 04:15 PM   #38
biblegirl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 6,462
Likes: 5 (4 Posts)
Default my thoughts

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

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.

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:




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:

Quote:
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 , 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.
biblegirl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 04:17 PM   #39
size_of_light
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 18,627
Likes: 595 (370 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metacomet View Post
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 .

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.



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.

Last edited by size_of_light; 23-07-2009 at 04:18 PM.
size_of_light is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 04:38 PM   #40
metacomet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 23 (14 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by size_of_light View Post
I love you but you're absolutely mad here.

Review the evidence.
I did posted right after that I am more enclined to believe it's a bear by miles now than a person in a suit.
Quote:
And the Patterson Bigfoot film is not a hoax.
Definitely not.
metacomet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:52 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.