Comments on: More thoughts on the Gable Attack Film http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/ Sasquatch News, Photos and Commentary Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:33:39 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Jason Pratt http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Jason Pratt Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:35:43 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-77 In fairness, I will add that the digital look of scruzzled film-hash after the bite shot, could be a result of digitizing the film for Quicktime. In fairness, I will add that the digital look of scruzzled film-hash after the bite shot, could be a result of digitizing the film for Quicktime.

]]> By: Jason Pratt http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Jason Pratt Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:16:15 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-70 Also, I agree: there appears to be a muzzle. Also, I agree: there appears to be a muzzle.

]]> By: Jason Pratt http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-69 Jason Pratt Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:12:35 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-69 Recently found your site, and have recommended it around. Is there a collection of analyses so far on the first film? <strong>(EDITOR'S NOTE: THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/the-gable-film-2-michigan-dogman-or-persistent-hoax/)</strong> Several impressions: 1.) The head is lifted up in an alert pose, and can be seen looking around left and right in initial frames. This would seem hard to hoax. 2.) The head seems small for the body, proportionate to most animals. (I certainly see the ears in some frames, can't tell if they've been flattened in other frames.) 3.) Roughly speaking, the skin and musculature seem bear-like in their movements. 4.) The bite shot, on the other hand, comes out of nowhere framewise. The camera has settled and finished pointing at a depth focus with a particular light--and in a direction and height comparable to the original shots. Did the filmer, being charged by this thing, suddenly decide oh, well, I'll stop running and start filming through my eyepiece again, not even looking around, in a direction not the same as where this animal was charging from? Then bam, fangs (in a very different lighting) in the picture. The scruzzled 'film-hash' afterward looks digital. Why is the camera still running when it lands on its side? The animal seems real enough--the head movements would seem hard to fake for another animal wearing a costume, and the other movements would be hard for a human to fake wearing a suit. A general impression of badger (really really large badger {g}. Wolverine?) The bite and afterward seems, to me, to have been faked in a jump-shock sort of way ending in a Cloverfield-esque fashion. (Or maybe a "Last Broadcast" fashion.) Too many oddities to accept as real so far, but the animal footage is certainly perplexing. If that's faked, I'm impressed. JRP Recently found your site, and have recommended it around.

Is there a collection of analyses so far on the first film?

(EDITOR’S NOTE: THAT CAN BE FOUND HERE: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/the-gable-film-2-michigan-dogman-or-persistent-hoax/)

Several impressions:

1.) The head is lifted up in an alert pose, and can be seen looking around left and right in initial frames. This would seem hard to hoax.

2.) The head seems small for the body, proportionate to most animals. (I certainly see the ears in some frames, can’t tell if they’ve been flattened in other frames.)

3.) Roughly speaking, the skin and musculature seem bear-like in their movements.

4.) The bite shot, on the other hand, comes out of nowhere framewise. The camera has settled and finished pointing at a depth focus with a particular light–and in a direction and height comparable to the original shots. Did the filmer, being charged by this thing, suddenly decide oh, well, I’ll stop running and start filming through my eyepiece again, not even looking around, in a direction not the same as where this animal was charging from? Then bam, fangs (in a very different lighting) in the picture. The scruzzled ‘film-hash’ afterward looks digital. Why is the camera still running when it lands on its side?

The animal seems real enough–the head movements would seem hard to fake for another animal wearing a costume, and the other movements would be hard for a human to fake wearing a suit. A general impression of badger (really really large badger {g}. Wolverine?)

The bite and afterward seems, to me, to have been faked in a jump-shock sort of way ending in a Cloverfield-esque fashion. (Or maybe a “Last Broadcast” fashion.)

Too many oddities to accept as real so far, but the animal footage is certainly perplexing. If that’s faked, I’m impressed.

JRP

]]> By: admin http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-36 admin Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:17:22 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-36 Jeff, Thanks for your sharing expertise! Regarding the "abysmal" quality of the filming in the forensic footage - I reposted the explanation from the person who discovered the film on the original thread (somehow, it had disappeared), but it basically said that the guy was a hack with a camera and didn't even work for the DNR at all. :) Jeff,

Thanks for your sharing expertise! Regarding the “abysmal” quality of the filming in the forensic footage – I reposted the explanation from the person who discovered the film on the original thread (somehow, it had disappeared), but it basically said that the guy was a hack with a camera and didn’t even work for the DNR at all. :)

]]> By: Wayne Stratemeyer http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-34 Wayne Stratemeyer Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:09:53 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-34 Ok, I've watched both films and sorry to say I believe the "body" film is a hoax. 1) Police don't "label" items as they are in the second film, they number them. It's quite obvious what the object is theres no reason to label it with a name. 2) The police officer has a clipboard with some writing on it, like displaying what is going on. No police department is that poor, I don't care where you are police have the funds for at least sound recording equipment. 3) Lack of blood at the scene of the body. I've been a volunteer firefighter/EMT for 15+ years, that type of division of a body and almost no blood, sorry no dice the ground would be saturated, I've rolled up on many shootings and stabbings and you couldn't get within 3 feet of the victim without stepping in something. 4) Gable film #1. Ok, going backwards here for a minute. Person in question is most likely a female. Just by watching movements and how "she" carries herself. I was a corrections officer for 5 years and in our training academy we actually had to sex a person from 50 and 100 yards just by watching their movements. anyway, I'm trying to get at two points here. Number one its a hoax, a very well thought out one but a hoax none the less. Now the second point is that everything you see on these two films are real and this incident actually happened. which brings me to ask this one question about the animal that the film caught. Are there any reports of "big cats" leopards, mountain lions in that area. I could swear and say it moved cat like. Anyway, these are just my thoughts and like I said if it is real, it may have been a big cat. but then again I'm thinking to hard and I'm getting a headache. Thanks for your time. Ok, I’ve watched both films and sorry to say I believe the “body” film is a hoax. 1) Police don’t “label” items as they are in the second film, they number them. It’s quite obvious what the object is theres no reason to label it with a name. 2) The police officer has a clipboard with some writing on it, like displaying what is going on. No police department is that poor, I don’t care where you are police have the funds for at least sound recording equipment. 3) Lack of blood at the scene of the body. I’ve been a volunteer firefighter/EMT for 15+ years, that type of division of a body and almost no blood, sorry no dice the ground would be saturated, I’ve rolled up on many shootings and stabbings and you couldn’t get within 3 feet of the victim without stepping in something. 4) Gable film #1. Ok, going backwards here for a minute. Person in question is most likely a female. Just by watching movements and how “she” carries herself. I was a corrections officer for 5 years and in our training academy we actually had to sex a person from 50 and 100 yards just by watching their movements. anyway, I’m trying to get at two points here. Number one its a hoax, a very well thought out one but a hoax none the less. Now the second point is that everything you see on these two films are real and this incident actually happened. which brings me to ask this one question about the animal that the film caught. Are there any reports of “big cats” leopards, mountain lions in that area. I could swear and say it moved cat like. Anyway, these are just my thoughts and like I said if it is real, it may have been a big cat. but then again I’m thinking to hard and I’m getting a headache. Thanks for your time.

]]> By: Jeff Johnston http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-33 Jeff Johnston Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:51:05 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-33 In your original referenced post, with the link to "original Gable film" I'm puzzled about the format. Since this was apparently shot on 8mm film, per the camera in the images and the camera type people used for home movies back then, 8mm has a 4:3 aspect ratio. The Youtube edition is shown in 16:9 widescreen, which results in things being distorted horizontally, making them appear too "fat" or wide. This could result in a somewhat off-base interpretation of what's being seen. This format distortion could result from the film-to-video conversion process and it's probably entirely accidental, as opposed to being done with a sinister motive. Working with Youtube coding is always something of an experiment/crapshoot as they seem to change their processes at random, and frequently. Just one thought, anyway... Frameline artifacts (dust, aperture defects, etc) are visible top and bottom so it seems the full 8mm frame is shown, it hasn't been cropped or letterboxed. Youtube, by default, displays the material sent to it in the native format, and if you send 16:9 material it fills the frame with it, but leaves 4:3 with black letterbox-style bands on the sides of the 16:9 frame. The projector seen briefly at the end of the "second graphic footage" clip seems to be a Bell & Howell 16mm, If the footage the posters were copying by shooting the screen is 16mm, it stands to reason that a professional police forensic or crime investigation might use the better-quality 16mm film instead of the 8mm from the first clip. However, the quality of that "forensic footage" is abysmal from the standpoint of the person doing the filming. If that's a pro doing his job, maybe their standards were different back then. Jeff Johnston In your original referenced post, with the link to “original Gable film” I’m puzzled about the format. Since this was apparently shot on 8mm film, per the camera in the images and the camera type people used for home movies back then, 8mm has a 4:3 aspect ratio. The Youtube edition is shown in 16:9 widescreen, which results in things being distorted horizontally, making them appear too “fat” or wide. This could result in a somewhat off-base interpretation of what’s being seen.

This format distortion could result from the film-to-video conversion process and it’s probably entirely accidental, as opposed to being done with a sinister motive. Working with Youtube coding is always something of an experiment/crapshoot as they seem to change their processes at random, and frequently.

Just one thought, anyway…

Frameline artifacts (dust, aperture defects, etc) are visible top and bottom so it seems the full 8mm frame is shown, it hasn’t been cropped or letterboxed. Youtube, by default, displays the material sent to it in the native format, and if you send 16:9 material it fills the frame with it, but leaves 4:3 with black letterbox-style bands on the sides of the 16:9 frame.

The projector seen briefly at the end of the “second graphic footage” clip seems to be a Bell & Howell 16mm, If the footage the posters were copying by shooting the screen is 16mm, it stands to reason that a professional police forensic or crime investigation might use the better-quality 16mm film instead of the 8mm from the first clip. However, the quality of that “forensic footage” is abysmal from the standpoint of the person doing the filming. If that’s a pro doing his job, maybe their standards were different back then.

Jeff Johnston

]]> By: admin http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-31 admin Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:05:29 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-31 John - Check out the original post here: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/the-gable-film-2-michigan-dogman-or-persistent-hoax/ And welcome. :) Cliff - The person working on the truck appears to be wearing a VEST and a SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT of a light color beneath it. See the enhancement posted above! :) I envision the scenario as I posted in my original blog... Mom and son were out for a drive, son yelled, "Stop the truck!", he bailed out and ran over into the woods. Mom probably got out and was on her way over by the time the thing got to him. John – Check out the original post here: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/the-gable-film-2-michigan-dogman-or-persistent-hoax/

And welcome. :)

Cliff – The person working on the truck appears to be wearing a VEST and a SHORT-SLEEVED SHIRT of a light color beneath it. See the enhancement posted above! :)

I envision the scenario as I posted in my original blog… Mom and son were out for a drive, son yelled, “Stop the truck!”, he bailed out and ran over into the woods. Mom probably got out and was on her way over by the time the thing got to him.

]]> By: John http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-30 John Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:56:09 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-30 Hi, I'm John from Florida, and new to the group here. And a firm believer in the Patterson film, by the way. Can someone fill me in on this Gable matter? It sounds interesting. Hi, I’m John from Florida, and new to the group here. And a firm believer in the Patterson film, by the way. Can someone fill me in on this Gable matter? It sounds interesting.

]]> By: Cliff Falen http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Cliff Falen Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:22:20 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-29 I too have posted comments on my webjam about this film. As I stated if a hoax then lets send them to Hollywood because they capture the whole essence of the late 70's and early 80's. I did not see breast on the person working on the truck I will go look again but because the shirt was open to the navel I guess its a man. The apparent puffiness of the corpse my be do to decomposer and swelling setting in at the time of the second film. Also I can not see a woman jeopardizing her child for a picture. Unless of course she knew this animal from other meetings and was pissed at it too. I am posting my critique of part two soon so check it out. Thanks Autumn for letting me comment this is a very disturbing but sobering film. We should all be on our best behavior as we research these forest dwellers. Cliff Falen I too have posted comments on my webjam about this film. As I stated if a hoax then lets send them to Hollywood because they capture the whole essence of the late 70’s and early 80’s. I did not see breast on the person working on the truck I will go look again but because the shirt was open to the navel I guess its a man. The apparent puffiness of the corpse my be do to decomposer and swelling setting in at the time of the second film. Also I can not see a woman jeopardizing her child for a picture. Unless of course she knew this animal from other meetings and was pissed at it too. I am posting my critique of part two soon so check it out.

Thanks Autumn for letting me comment this is a very disturbing but sobering film. We should all be on our best behavior as we research these forest dwellers.

Cliff Falen

]]> By: Scott http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/general-updates-from-autumn/more-thoughts-on-the-gable-attack-film/comment-page-1/#comment-27 Scott Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:10:57 +0000 http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/?p=196#comment-27 I'm pleased to read this as Clint's impressions are similar to my own. :) As to the guy who posted Gable 2. Just like Steve Cook and Gable 1, I'm sure he was inundated with e-mails attacking him and calling him a hoaxer, and probably all sorts of vile crap. He probably just said "the hell with it, it's not worth it." Can't say as I'd blame him there. I’m pleased to read this as Clint’s impressions are similar to my own. :)

As to the guy who posted Gable 2. Just like Steve Cook and Gable 1, I’m sure he was inundated with e-mails attacking him and calling him a hoaxer, and probably all sorts of vile crap. He probably just said “the hell with it, it’s not worth it.”

Can’t say as I’d blame him there.

]]>