For the past week, I’ve been reporting on a mysterious piece of film footage that has been sparking a lot of controversy since it’s initial discovery five years ago, and even more so now due to a new “sequel” that came to light recently. That film is known simply as “The Gable Film.” I suggest you start from the beginning here and get caught up before reading this post.
Throughout this past week, I have discussed the Gable Films in depth, analyzing the film footage scene-by-scene and sometimes frame-by-frame. There were times when, as soon as I was convinced it was a hoax, I would suddenly see something I hadn’t noticed before, and it would make me wonder. Then there were times when, as soon as I’m convinced that it might actually be authentic footage, something else would come to light that would make me cast doubt on the whole thing.
In the end, I’m as perplexed by the whole thing as I was in the beginning.
If viewed from beginning to end, everything seems like it really could be authentic vintage footage of an unidentified animal attack, and if you include the second film, the gruesome aftermath documented by the police.
But there’s something that’s been bugging me all along, something that just didn’t feel right from the beginning. The “fatal flaw”, if you will, of this film, and that is…
There’s just something about them teeth.
The teeth I’m referring to are the ones that mysteriously come out of nowhere in the original Gable Film right before it comes to it’s jolting end, at exactly 3 minutes and 23 seconds.
That’s right, notice I said “come out of nowhere,” not “come into frame.” That’s because if you notice, there is no transition blur one would expect if they were to suddenly come into frame. It just jumps from an image of the forest to an extreme close up of the teeth (in relatively good focus, I might add). Here are the two sequential frames side by side.
There’s just something about them teeth.
The teeth I’m referring to are the ones that mysteriously come out of nowhere in the original Gable Film right before it comes to it’s jolting end, at exactly 3 minutes and 23 seconds.
That’s right, notice I said “come out of nowhere,” not “come into frame.” That’s because if you notice, there is no transition blur one would expect if they were to suddenly come into frame. It just jumps from an image of the forest to an extreme close up of the teeth (in relatively good focus, I might add). Here are the two sequential frames side by side.
If you heard my interview with Chris Walden on last week’s “Shadow Hour” radio program, you’ll remember that I had doubts about those few frames of footage. And if you read Steve Cook’s rebuttal, you’ll know that he is insistent that he did not add those frames, that they were indeed on the original film when he received it.
Then if that’s the case, is it possible they were edited on the original 8mm film? Of course. There’s a couple of ways this could have been done.
In the olden days when I was a kid, I used to go around making stop-motion animation movies using the same type of film camera as used on these films, only mine was a Super-8. One time I had a fake rubber hand that I wanted to make crawl around on the ground. The title of my film, of course, was “The Crawling Hand!” Positioning the hand on the ground and my Super-8 camera mounted on a tripod, I would press the trigger on the camera’s pistol grip, a frame or two would roll through the camera, and I’d release the trigger. Then I’d go move the hand a little, bending the fingers, and press the trigger again. I would continue this process over and over until the hand had moved quite a distance from where it started. When I got the developed film back a week or two later and played it through my projector, Voilà! I had magically made the hand “crawl” across the ground! This was known as stop-motion animation using “in-camera” editing.
So yes, it is possible to shoot off just a few frames of film using the same technique as I describe. This could have been done using in-camera editing, where right after filming the beast running at him, the cameraman could have released the trigger, gone to another location hours, days, or even weeks later, found a dog or other animal, and filmed a single second of close-up on the teeth, released the trigger, then later go back to the location (or any other field for that matter), and filmed as the camera drops to the ground.
Another way to edit on film would be a splice. That’s where you take two pieces of developed film and splice them together. One piece of film is cut at a certain point in between frames where you want that shot to end, and basically “taped” with a special type of splicing tape to another piece of film where you want a different shot to begin. It’s how movies have been edited since the beginning of motion pictures, before the advent of the digital age (nowadays we use computer programs like Final Cut Pro or Avid).
So if the Gable Film were spliced, Steve Cook, having the original film in his possession, would certainly know about it if he were to look at the actual film itself at the exact frames in question. That is, UNLESS the film he received was a copy or film transfer from the original, meaning the spliced film had a copy made of it onto another piece of 8mm film. If that were the case, no splice would be visible. I’m sure given the amount of investigation Mr. Cook put into the Gable Film, he would have surely mentioned something as obvious as a film splice, especially at such a questionable portion of the footage.
Now another thing that always bothered me about the teeth were those weird lines on the sides of the mouth.
Were they whiskers? Hair?
Now it seems we may have an answer.
A new YouTube video by user “borough110” came to light recently which may put to rest the entire authenticity of both Gable Films (because if the first one’s a fake, then surely the second one would be as well).
Originally pointed out by “amb3rfaith” (her screen name), her discovery of this video analysis of those few frames may prove to be the smoking gun. I won’t try to elaborate, I think this clip says it all.
So after discussing the ways the teeth could have been inserted into the film, and after viewing this video about the possible explanation of the “lines” around the mouth, does this definitively prove the Gable Film to be a hoax?
Well, maybe… and maybe not.
You see, we still don’t know what that creature really is. Is it a dog? A bear? An ape, as some have suggested? Or is it a true cryptid?
Sometimes, when people find evidence of something authentically unexplainable, they do something stupid. For reasons known only to themselves, sometimes they will embellish it. They will add something that they feel completes the picture. Or enhances it. Or adds to the mystery. Whatever the reason, once they do this, they unwittingly compromise the integrity of their entire evidence and their testimony.
It’s happened numerous times in the past with Bigfoot witnesses. Ivan Marx and Ray Wallace are good examples of people who may have had a legitimate encounter that was later tarnished by proof that some of their evidence may have been hoaxed.
In fact, I’m in possession of a recent Bigfoot video that might be authentic, but I have my reservations about it simply because the guy who shot it admitted to me he ADDED A SCENE BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER FOR “DRAMATIC EFFECT.” Why did he do that???? I mean, the guy just destroyed any integrity or credibility of the film BY EMBELLISHING IT!!!
The man originally was trying to get money for the video by selling it on eBay back in 2007 (you can read about it on this archival post on cryptomundo.com). But when the winning bidder did not come through with the $2616.00 cash, he just gave up on trying to profit from it. I contacted him after the auction and said I would be seriously interested in seeing his footage, but I would not pay anything for it. So he agreed to send me a copy, in exchange I promised Paul (his name) that I would not share it with anyone or upload it to the internet since he entrusted me with it.
I was dismayed and extremely disappointed when I saw he added a whole scene right before the supposedly real footage, I guess to add substance. In my opinion, nobody would take it seriously now, it’s ruined. Maybe, if Paul agrees to it, one day I’ll post his footage here.
But I digress.
My point is, everything else in the footage of both films feels real to me, with the exception of the “teeth,” which I feel, just as I did from the beginning, were added for effect. Perhaps not by Steve Cook, but maybe by the person who gave the film to him. Or maybe by the person who held the supposed estate sale where the film was found in a box. Or maybe by Aaron Gable himself. Who knows.
IN CONCLUSION
People love a good mystery. And for you, our faithful reader, I don’t want to spoil whatever YOU believe by giving you my unimportant opinion as fact. It’s just my opinion, and everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.
So here, my friends, I leave any conclusions to be drawn about the authenticity of those mysterious few minutes of film up to you. Let the Gable Film be whatever you believe it to be.
As for me, the truth behind the Gable Film may forever remain a mystery. And you know, I think I’m alright with that.
August 8th, 2009 UPDATE! Authorities Investigating!CLICK HERE!
