These shaky, admittedly eerie clips beg many questions, as I’m sure we all agree. I suppose more than (or at least on par with) the beast itself, what I find puzzling is that *if* this was genuine footage of a real large, unknown animal (as per the footage – the people at the scene may have known perfectly well what it was), why would someone get out of the relative safety of a truck to film it?

The consensus is that the male face in the side mirror is that of a pre-teen or young teenage boy, and the film tends to lead the viewer to believe that he is the one filming all along. Now, if you were driving down the road (no matter how urban or “backwoods” it was) and you suddenly saw a large animal – virtually any large animal, even a cow (I’m not implying the animal in the film was a cow) – would you honestly let your child – or any child, or anyone for that matter – get out of the vehicle and film it?

We don’t know who the other party (or parties) were in that truck, but it could very well have been one of the boy’s parents (my gut felt that I was viewing a woman the first time I saw the scene of her/him chopping wood). What parent in their right mind would allow their child, as I just said, to get out and film a rather sizable wild beast? This strikes me as truly odd and does smack of a “Hollywood” quality to this clip, because it just seems so far-fetched that any sane person would put themselves (or others with them) in harm’s way and open to being attached/killed by a wild animal. Yet, that said, there are no shortage of stories about human lives ending due to lapses in better judgment.

If we take the stance that this film is genuine, one does wonder what the animal we’re viewing was. Initially, when we first see it come into frame, it’s stature seems to imply possibilities ranging from a bear to a cougar to a large primate to a huge dog (the front “shoulders” reminded me of those of a cane corso). I let my mind go to the absurd even for a moment (as others have mentioned upon seeing this film, a wild animal could have escaped from a zoo after all) and thought of everything from a rhino to a buffalo to a freakishly huge wolverine, yet even opening up the playing field to every animal on earth, I cannot say as though I’m certain of what exactly it is we’re seeing. Further throwing off my guesses is the utterly odd way in which the “creature” (or person in a costume, if this was a hoax) darts to the side. To me that seems cat-like (I have a house cat who thinks she’s a wild tiger, so I’m quite familiar with feline movements), but bears can be surprisingly agile, too (as of course can dogs and other canines).

The more I sit here in the wee hours of the night digesting these clips, the more I do feel that, if they are genuine, the animal was a bear or a huge cougar. The body seems very large (stocky) compared to the head (a characteristic that is somewhat cat-like and also somewhat ape-like), but a well-feed bear could cut a similar figure. And a bear could certainly have taken down two humans in mere seconds, if it so wanted to (as evident in the documentary film “Grizzly Man”, though thankfully, we do not see the fatal attack in that film).

If this film was a hoax it was well done in some ways – chiefly the animal’s costume. But so very “b” movie in others (the split second view of the boy in the side mirror seems a bit intentional to me, but then again, if he was new to videography, he may not have had the foresight to remember not to point the lens at a reflective surface/mirror thus capturing his own image in the shot). Many people have made “silly” home movies over the years that never saw the light of day, but one would wonder if this was a home movie/super low budget film, why did it not surface until so many years later? Why go to all that trouble and then shelf your gruesome creation? (Too gory, planned to re-shoot it, needed more editing, wanted to change the plot, etc?)

As I began this (legnthy) comment by mentioning, I am brand new to the world of the Gable Film. The points I made may have been made elsewhere on the web by others, but I felt compelled to share them – and am quite certain further ideas will continue to dart around in my brain regarding this mysterious case.

I don’t often turn to clichés, but after watching these clips, I feel compelled to end on an X-Files inspired note by saying, whatever the case may be behind these cold shiver-inducing clips, the truth is out there – somewhere.

[Editor's note: There was never a claim made that the cameraman in Reel 2 was related in any way to the VICTIM. He was, reportedly, the uncle of the person who published the second reel on Youtube.]

After viewing both films are that the “woodsplitter” & “victim” are the same person, and definitely a woman physically.

Along with Nick, I also see no reason that her name couldn’t be Aaron, as I have known a couple of women with that same name, and spelling.

Also, while there a some minor similarities between the animal and a gorilla, it’s charge characteristics and four legged posture has little resemblance to any gorilla charge I’ve ever seem in film/video footage, other than it’s gait, especially the distinctive “zig-zag”, which seems highly inconsistent with known primate locomotion techniques. (If there are primates examples that resemble this behavior, please provide links!)

I do seem to recall that years ago, while doing some wildlife research, that there was a drawing of a bear with a very similar profile that lived in either eastern Russia, or Asia, but it’s very vague, and I have no idea where this recollection comes from, but I do recall that I was impressed that the head was small and “canine-like” and it’s overall posture/profile was un-bear like.

I agree with Autumn concerning the “charge” characteristics being very inconsistent with known bear behavior.. They may not stand when running away from you, but AFAIK, they always stand before becoming aggressive and charging.

just my 2 cents..

Bill

Either way I’m quite curious of the whole thing as well because I agree that it seems improbable that a man in a suit could ever move so realistically as that, and the animal seems to have characteristics of several sorts in it. It’s all very strange and I wish their was more answers. If it is a hoax, it is a damn good one in my opinion.

RE; the Gable 2 footage… you may or may not be able to reach a conclusion about the body in it. Unfortunately the footage is basically a cell-phone cam recording of the actual film playback on a projector… i.e., a 2nd generation “film of a film”. Add to that the video compression factor from Youtube and the details are quite blurry.

As to the creature itself… it’s not being ignored. :) It has indeed been discussed/analyzed a great deal in the OB Forum… in multiple threads with many pages ever since it was released a couple of years back. We’re still trying to figure it out. :)

Good to see you here Jesse. :)

…Scott Davis

[EDITOR'S NOTE: I've uploaded it to Youtube. You can find it in the above artcile. :) - Autumn]