Something isn't right about the wire in the Gable film....

Something isn't right about the wire in the Gable film....

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 5th, 2009, 2:06 pm #1

I spoke with MK last night...MK has worked a bit with this film and has a digital copy from the original film and sent me a collage of stills showing the mouth...see if you can see any differences in the stills from MKs copy compared to the mouth showing the wire...

Quote
Like
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

August 5th, 2009, 5:55 pm #2

First thought is that the teeth in the "wire" pic at the bottom are at the wrong angle. Meaning...in the top pic (above yellow arrow), the mouth seem normal, with teeth at lips further apart and angling-in towards the back of the mouth (look in a mirror and open your mouth to see what I mean).

In the bottom pic, it looks like the teeth are further apart in the back of the mouth and the the jaw is now angling shut toward the front of the mouth/lips.

Basically, the perspective seems wrong. The lower jaw would have to be dislocated (or something) to do this.

Second - and I don't know if this is holds water as I don't feel like re-re-re-watching the vid right now...... and I don't know what the spacing of the stills is --- but the top row of pics and the bottom pic show the jaw pointing to our left and the middle row of pics seems to show the jaw now pointing to our right (see roof of mouth for ridges - like you'd see on the roof of a dog's mouth - they now indicate a righ-ward pointing jaw). Should the head/jaw move that quickly from side-to-side, or is this an indication of spliced or sped-up film?

-Mike in NC

Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 5th, 2009, 7:45 pm #3

"What I think I see?...LOL...but not bad Mike...the mouth is the key...first...the wider and much clearer view of the mouth that is not in the original film...I know MK has a copy of the original film...as a matter of fact all the above stills except the one comes from his copy....look at the upper teeth...they are different as are the bottom...the tongue...when biting the tongue wouldn't be where it would be bitten...

I'm thinking someone has been doing a bit of photo shopping...and like Mike...I'm in a hurry and haven't the time to go back for further details...
Quote
Like
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

August 5th, 2009, 7:53 pm #4

Gee, thanks! LOL

Hey, I "committed" from the get-go that something was wrong with this film! So...HA! :D :D :D


As for "what I think I see".....heck, with nothing but a bunch blurry close-up stills.....just what in the heck could I possibly know??? LOLOL


So, are you saying that MK has a "legit" copy of the film and that the one currently posted on the web is an altered version of the already-questionable footage?

-Mike in NC
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 5th, 2009, 11:00 pm #5

I do know MK has a copy on CD, digital, of the original film acquired from the owner of said film...if it's not in the original then I would think some one has been doing some playing around with photo shop or one of the programs to add, subtract or alter video...

IMO...still a mystery creature...
Quote
Like
Share

nellie
nellie

August 6th, 2009, 6:25 am #6

And to think.....it may still be out there.
Quote
Share

MikeInNC
MikeInNC

August 6th, 2009, 11:56 am #7

I do know MK has a copy on CD, digital, of the original film acquired from the owner of said film...if it's not in the original then I would think some one has been doing some playing around with photo shop or one of the programs to add, subtract or alter video...

IMO...still a mystery creature...
I agree that the creature is unidentified and a mystery. Either it is something common and, due to conveniently out-of-focus footage, can't be clearly identified as such, or it is something new and not yet discovered.

But.....what do you think of "Part II"?
-The odd police film footage of the scene
-The dismembered body that is too neat and clean (hair, shirt, arm)?
-The lack of blood/gore in the area?
-That noone ever (conveniently) sees the face of the victim?
-No known (as of this time) report of bear attack death (it Would have been found as part of a Snopes or other web research project on this film over the past few years, I think).

What's your take on any of these observations?

I feel that there's so much "not right" and "out of place" with Part II that it points to a hoax. And if:

A = Part I
B = Part II
C = hoax

B=C, and A=B, then A=C

....in my opinion, anyway.

If someone could fake Part II....then they could just as easily fake Part I. At the absolute minimum, the owner(s) of Part I/Part II need to hand over the films for analysis to prove that the film itself is of 60's/70's manufacture.*

Thanks.

-Mike

P.S. - IF someone touched up Part I by adding the mouth footage....wouldn't the owner of the original be screaming bloody murder (no pun intended) about having their film altered and posted all over the place?

*Remember, back in the '80s, when Hitler's diary was supposedly found? I think part of the story was that he really wasn't to blame for the Holocaust, etc.? Then they found out that the ink/paper was wrong for the time period in which it would have been written? Then, in the Bloom County cartoon strip, I think they found Amelia Earharts(sp) memoirs (I believe Opus was the forger) and the memoir was a huge sensation, until researchers discovered that it was, "written on official "Dukes of Hazzard" stationary" ("It was on sale!" explained Opus to Milo) - but I digress LOLOL

Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

August 6th, 2009, 2:04 pm #8

I have no idea where this film came from so I really don't know anything about it...it does look a bit cheesy...the corpse, the camera where it is located...in the original film the camera is still running after it hits the ground for several frames...I guess, if it was running with nothing in the film, it would be edited out...

IMO...the whole darn thing could be a hoax but then again when I see this unidentified creature it makes me think...maybe this is a one of a kind piece of footage of an unknown cryptid...
Quote
Like
Share

Crispy Critter
Crispy Critter

August 6th, 2009, 3:52 pm #9

If it is real - it might be one of them hissin critters.............
Quote
Share

Versatile
Versatile

August 7th, 2009, 1:01 pm #10

I spoke with MK last night...MK has worked a bit with this film and has a digital copy from the original film and sent me a collage of stills showing the mouth...see if you can see any differences in the stills from MKs copy compared to the mouth showing the wire...

Would it be possible to determine the size of the head or the animal by expanding from the size of the mesh? Say that try the mesh size as 1/2" and then 1". I am confident that a person better at math than me can do this.

What type of mesh is it. If it is hardware cloth; then wouldn't the joints of the wire be thicker?
I am thinking more along the lines of a nylon mesh.

I have been wrong many times befor; so oh well.
Quote
Share