In a darkened room, a shadowy person turns on an 8mm projector. All that can be heard is the rolling of film, and on the screen before us we see something terrible…
Sound like a horror movie? Actually, this is an accurate description of “The Gable Film Part 2,” a supposedly real YouTube video that made the rounds on the internet last week before suddenly disappearing. 
Or did it?
I was able to capture the footage and upload it to my YouTube Channel before it became lost forever. You can view it here (again, a word of warning: the film you are about to see is of a gruesome and graphic nature. Viewer discretion is advised.)

The saga began last week (I would recommend starting at the beginning to get the whole story) when this video showed up on YouTube. It has since caused a minor internet sensation in that it appears to be the aftermath of the original Gable Film, which some have claimed is “evidence” of a, get this… werewolf attack.
Or dogman, depending on who you ask.
Or, if you are like Steve Cook, the owner of the original Gable Film footage, you remain wisely neutral about the evidence, leaving it to the viewer to come to their own conclusions.

In any case, I have analyzed this new footage and will simply present to you my findings.  I will try to refrain from any speculation for now, and simply present the facts.
As stated earlier, we can’t see the person who turns on the projector at the beginning of this film. He, or she, remains in the shadows and off screen. All we know is the YouTube poster who put this video up goes by the screen name “QuinlanOUR12” (Clue #1). Whether this is the same person running the projector is unknown.
The first thing we are able to clearly see on the screen is a light blue 1968 Ford F-250, which appears to be the same type of vehicle we see on the original Gable Film. We also see behind it what appears to be a Michigan State Police vehicle. 

    Gable Film 2
            
We next see someone in a vintage Michigan State Police officer’s uniform holding up some sheets of paper. The first sheet appears to say “Reel 2 Attack Site.”  He flips that over to show a sheet that apparently says “Vehicle Reg. Aaron Gable.”  He then points his left hand in the air as if to tell the camera man to “go over there.”

Next the camera pans around getting an establishing shot of the wooded surroundings. It cuts to an officer far away in the distance waving the cameraman over.

After this, we see one officer walking over to where another stands by a green tarp on the ground covering something.

The next cut we again see an officer, apparently the same one as before, holding up a notepad.  He flips the page, but the footage is blown out so we cannot see anything written on the paper (perhaps if we had the original film to analyze we’d have this important detail). 

Next he proceeds to uncover the tarp, revealing (this is the gory part) the severed upper torso of a person.  

I will speculate here. It appears to be the same person that can be seen in the first Gable Film.  Hairstyle, clothing style, body type all seem to match. Unfortunately, we are never able to see the face.
If real, it is a very disturbing and haunting image.
From here, the cameraman turns and walks over to a movie camera lying on the ground. Again, it appears to be the same camera used by the boy in the original Gable Film, which others have determined to be a Bell & Howell 8mm Zoom Reflex Electric Eye Autoload Cartridge Camera.* 
           Gable Film 2
          Original Gable Film
The cameraman turns from here to a few feet away in the grass. There’s something on the ground, we can only see the first three letters written on a sheet of paper next to it, which appears to read “GIA.”  Upon closer inspection though, it appears that he is filming a pair of black, thick-rimmed glasses, thus making the paper read “Gla…” as in “Glasses.”  

The interesting thing to note here is this. If this “Gable Film 2” is in fact a hoax, as some in the blogosphere have suggested, then why would the hoaxer have added a superfluous clue such as a pair of glasses, when they were never established in the original Gable Film?  
We never see the face of the victim, if indeed it’s the same person, in either films.  It seems to me to be too far of a stretch for a hoaxer to add such a detail for no apparent reason.
Finally, there is one last thing the camera turns to,  but it is unclear if it is a new piece of evidence, or that the filmer has done a 180 to see the same camera on the ground again.  It jump cuts from here to a grassy knoll,** before the film suddenly rolls out of the projector.  It looks like at some point the film had been broken, as evidenced by the ragged edge seen here.

So, where does this all leave us? Well, frankly, with a lot more questions than answers. 
It appears that either these two films are related, or someone has made a very clever “sequel” to the original Gable Footage as a hoax, although I feel this is unlikely. My reasoning? While not impossible to fake, I feel it would be more work to pull off than the ultimate payoff of such a hoax would be worth. 
Think about it.  You’d have to find the same exact type of vintage truck; the same exact type of vintage camera; the same body type, hair, and wardrobe for the alleged victim to match the original film. Not to mention if it were a real person playing the part of the victim; you’d have to dig a hole in the ground deep enough to stick their legs into, without disturbing the ground around them. Have you ever tried digging a hole that deep and narrow? Not as easy as it sounds.  And if it were a fake prop body, you’d have to create that too, not to mention the intestines and blood. I don’t know about you, but that arm looks pretty realistic.
And don’t forget the vintage police car, vintage police uniforms, film to shoot and develop it onto… do you see where I’m going with this?  Do you see how ridiculous this is starting to get??
I do not believe this film to be a hoax film made to match the original Gable Film. I challenge anyone to come up with their own version of the Gable Film 2, just to see how closely they could match it. I can guarantee you it won’t happen, because people have much more valuable things to do with their time and money. 
That being said, another possibility is that BOTH films are a hoax. Now, this could be more likely the case, however I don’t think it would be a recently-made hoax, due to much of the same reasoning I gave earlier. Just getting your hands on vintage vehicles, clothing, camera, snowmobiles, etc. would be either very time-consuming or very expensive. 
One possibility is that it’s a vintage hoax, that’s just recently come to see the light of day. Meaning, the hoaxer who pulled this off tried making their own “Blair Witch” type film way back in the 1970’s. This, in my opinion, is the best case scenario if the films are indeed a hoax.
But that’s IF it’s a hoax. What if the footage is authentic?
Well, then that opens up a whole new can of worms. That means that we have a dead and horribly mutilated body of an actual real person, presumably “Aaron Gable” or someone close to him.  It also means we have a real mystery on our hands, in that: what kind of creature could have killed and eaten a human being like that?  What is it on that film, that charges at and ultimately makes a meal of the person filming it?  Is it, in fact, a bear attack, like QuinlanOUR12 asserts his Uncle John was asked to assist in documenting it’s aftermath? Or is it a bobcat, mountain lion, or even a dog?  Or Dogman??? 
And if it is a real animal attack that took place in Michigan in the 70’s that ultimately ended up in someone’s death, then why would the Michigan Department of Natural Resources deny any attacks ever occurred in the state during that decade???  If you listened to my interview with Chris Walden on Wednesday night’s “Shadow Hour” program, you may have heard me mention that the first thing I did when this mystery arose was contact the Michigan DNR’s wildlife biologist on duty, and he emphatically denied ANY deaths attributed to animal attacks in the state in that decade. 
And yet, a quick search of Wikipedia yields these results, which appear to contradict the DNR’s claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America
You see, according to the content on Wikipedia, on June 19th, 1978, a Michael Scott Patterson was killed by a black bear in Porcupine Mountains State Park in, where else… Michigan. 
Was the wildlife biologist I spoke with just ignorant of the facts, and thus, may be equally ignorant of the Gable Case? 
Or… are they trying to cover something up?
For now, the surfacing of the Gable Film 2 is only raising more questions than answers…

Courtesy a post by Dr. Scott on ghosttheory.com

Wednesday night’s broadcast of “The Shadow Hour” included a 20 minute segment of a discussion between host Chris Walden and myself concerning this week’s investigation into the mysterious “Gable Film.”  In case you didn’t get a chance to catch it, here is the complete unedited interview from that segment of the show.

(Insert link to The Shadow Hour-Gable Film Discussion)

A few hours before the broadcast, I had invited Steve Cook, the man who owns the original Gable Film, to call in to the show but he didn’t get the message in enough time to tune in to the live show. He did however get a chance to listen to the broadcast afterwards, and had a few things he wanted to clarify. I was granted his permission to share this with our readers, so here is the email I received from him regarding his position and clarifications (annotations in brackets are my additions – S. Busti):
*******************************************************************Hi Steve –
Sorry I couldn’t join the show last night. I had a chance to listen to your interview with Chris Walden on iTunes this evening. Overall it was well done and fairly presented, but I did want to clarify a couple of things.
First, I did not buy the film. It was given to me [by] a family who purchased a box of hinges at an estate sale in southern Michigan in 2004. The film was in a carton at the bottom, with a tag attached that read “Gable Case” followed by a sequence of numbers [MP041177-1]. They had the film for over a year before borrowing a projector to watch it.
One of them was familiar with my song “The Legend of the Dogman,” (which by the way was recorded in 1987, almost 20 years before this film surfaced). He knew that people had been sending me sighting reports for years, and originally tried to sell me the film, but I told him I would not purchase any kind of evidence. Eventually, he returned and gave the film to me in August of 2006.
Second, you suggested that I had somehow inserted the ‘teeth’ frames at the end of the film. I assure you the film you see is exactly the film that is on the original 8mm reel. A film expert who examined the frames stated that while it appears the mouth and teeth bite the camera, one must remember that in the sequence immediately before, the lens had been on its highest zoom setting. It is unlikely that the person reset the lens while running, so it follows that the ‘teeth’ sequence is actually shot while the animal is several feet from the lens. He speculates that the camera was either thrown to the ground or at the animal itself to fend it off.
Third, much has been made of the ‘video lines’ that are visible just after the teeth frames. These do not appear on the original film. They only surfaced following the last digital enhancement project, which was completed largely on Apple’s Final Cut Pro Studio software. The studio technician tells me that the lines are artifacts caused by a contrast filter he used to boost the image quality.
I have never stated that the film is of a dogman. It is my policy to remain neutral on all evidence  presented on the website. I prefer to let the viewer decide.
It’s also important to note that I’ve never attempted to market the film for profit. Recently, I released the entire film under the Creative Commons License. It’s available for anyone to download from my website to study, enhance, or use in any way they choose. Although portions of the film are shown in a documentary on my CD/DVD set, all profits from the sale of the set are donated to charity. I invite you to visit my site and view the contributions list: http://www.michigan-dogman.com/00_news.html
This latest development, the “Gable Film Part 2” is very disturbing. I have no idea if it is real, and frankly, I’ve expended so much time and energy on the original film that I lack the enthusiasm to pursue it.
There is a great deal more I could tell you about this matter, but this message has grown far too long already. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Best regards,Steve Cook
*******************************************************************I’d like to thank Mr. Cook for taking the time to clarify several of the facts, I apologize for not being entirely accurate and for inferring certain things when in fact, that was not the case. His claims that the “video lines” were artifacts created during the digital enhancement makes sense, as I am familiar with Final Cut and can see how that might occur.
As for the numbers on the film box, it appears this was an important clue that nobody had picked up on until recently. The number, MP041177-1, could possibly stand for “Michigan Police 04/11/1977, Film 1.”  If that assumption is correct, then we have a date.
As far as the new “Gable Film Part 2?” is concerned, the original user, QuinlanOUR12, pulled the video from YouTube late last night, shortly before George Noory’s Coast To Coast AM radio show aired with Beast of Bray Road specialist Linda Godfrey as guest (and yes, they did discuss the Gable Films). Not to fear, though; before it disappeared, I was able to upload the video to my YouTube Channel here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/MuseumOfTheWeird
Next, I’ll discuss a scene by scene breakdown and analysis of the Gable Film 2, and see if in fact it appears to be related to the original Gable Film.

TO BE CONTINUED: GABLE FILM 2 ANALYSIS

If you haven’t read the first two installments, you can do so here and here.  
I feel it necessary to give the reader a fair warning here:  the new evidence recently discovered and presented below is of a shocking and graphic nature. Viewer discretion is advised.
*******************************************************************
This post appeared on YouTube on Friday, June 17, 2009. According to the poster, who goes by QuinlanOUR12, this is the story behind the new footage (annotations in brackets are mine):

“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” [click to watch -Steve]. 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.”
*******************************************************************  
Now, without further ado, we present to you the new evidence… “Gable Film Part 2.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDAR-bEdAY4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CShNKGRY5tw

Presented here is a rehash of yesterday’s post, as well as a shot-by-shot analysis of the film, including our take on the mysterious and frightening creature that appears in the final seconds of the film. 
*A few years ago, some mysterious footage surfaced and quickly made the internet rounds. For reasons unknown, it had been simply known as “The Gable Film.”  Little else was known about it’s origins, other than the supposed fact that the 8mm film was discovered in an attic and later purchased at an estate sale. 

You can watch the complete Gable Film here.

The three-and-a-half minutes of footage starts off with two (or maybe three) people snowmobiling through some snow-patched forests in an undetermined location.  One of the snowmobilers appears to be a young, blond boy; another has short dark hair. It appears that the snow covering has partially melted, so maybe the time of year is late winter/early spring. 

At about the minute-and-a-half mark, the footage jump cuts to an image of either a very burly woman, or possibly a man with a 70‘s hairdo (the face is obscured by the hair) chopping a small log with a single swing of an axe. The subject is wearing a unisex plaid shirt and jeans, further making gender determination difficult. There is no snow on the ground now, but the fact that the subject is chopping wood would still put the time of year in the colder months, and not summer. 

The next two shots are, again, of a snowy wooded area, which at first glance appears to have no particular subject… or is that a human figure standing in the distance at 1:48?
Next jump cut appears to be a winding country road, with a rather friendly dog running around, sniffing the snow and at one point perking his ears up at a sound off in the woods, just as the camera pans over to find…nothing.

Next is an important clue. At about the 2:19 mark, we see a long shot of a light blue 1968 Ford F250 pickup truck with the hood up. It looks like the person checking under the hood is the same individual that appeared earlier in the wood chopping scene. Unfortunately, the distance from the camera again makes gender determination difficult; however, as the person looks up at the camera, ending the clip with a shrug of the shoulders, there does appear to be a left breast visible. This is the best indication we have throughout the rest of the evidence to determine this person’s gender. Therefore, from here on out we will simply refer to this individual in the feminine. (By the way, notice the same dog in the lower right hand corner?)

In the next shot, the woman’s apparently gotten the truck working, because it’s barreling down another country road. Now, there is no way to tell a few things for certain, like that the woman is indeed behind the wheel, or that the next few sequences even happen right after another.  In fact, the only thing we know for certain is that at one point, the person filming the woodland scenery catches a fleeting glimpse of himself in the side mirror’s reflection… and he’s a young boy. Could it be one of the same boys snowmobiling at the beginning of the film?

We also get a clear glimpse of the type of camera he’s using, and we know now without a doubt it is in fact an 8mm film camera (which rules out the possibility that the footage was shot with a modern video camera and made to look like old film footage with the use of video filters).
Suddenly, the camera appears to catch something (an animal?) moving on the side of the road. The door of the truck can be seen swinging open at precisely 2:40, and the passenger (the same boy?) appears to jump out and run after the beast. 
Here’s where things get interesting.
If you look at the frames between 2:39 and 2:41, the creature appears to have some simian characteristics to it’s movement. Here are the three best screen captures I could get.

Then, for a few moments, it appears that the camera person has lost his quarry. There’s just some eerie few seconds of nothing but barren woods. 
What happens next is spine-chilling, to say the least.

At exactly 3:08 there is a jump cut. Several yards directly in front of the camera, crouching low, is this… thing.  Then, it gets up off its haunches, AND CHARGES DIRECTLY AT THE CAMERAMAN! 
Realizing they’re in trouble, the cameraman just starts running for his life!  Within seconds, the creature is on him. The last image we see is a flash in extreme close-up of canine-like teeth, right before the camera drops to the ground as the film continues to run out…

*OK, if you’re not creeped out by now, just wait until we get to the shocking NEW footage that just surfaced over the weekend!  A word of warning, it is not for the squeamish.

TO BE CONTINUED…
TOMORROW: PART 3 OF THE GABLE FILM MYSTERY!

A few years ago, this mysterious footage surfaced and quickly made the internet rounds. For reasons unknown, it had been simply known as “The Gable Film.”  Little else was known about it’s origins, other than the supposed fact that the 8mm film was discovered in a box purchased at an estate sale. 
Note that the film you are about to watch is the complete, unedited version. For reasons which will be discussed later, I strongly recommend viewing the film throughout it’s entirety, from beginning to end.  Pay attention to details, they will be important later. Watch it all the way through to the end… that’s when things start getting interesting.

Full below…

Now for the REAL news. Two days ago, a gruesome piece of evidence surfaced which, if true, may lead to solving the mystery of the Gable Film…

TOMORROW!  PART 2 OF 
“THE MYSTERY OF THE GABLE FILM!”

Yesterday, a 26 foot long basking shark washed up on a beach in Long Island, NY, weighing in at an estimated 5,000 lbs.  Basking sharks, while mainly plankton eaters and posing no threat to man, can grow to intimidating sizes; the second largest fish in the ocean after the whale shark, it is known to grow up to 35 feet long.
One interesting thing to note is that many supposed “sea monster” carcasses that have washed up on shores in the past were often merely rotting basking shark remains. One of the most famous instances occurred in 1977 when a Japanese fishing vessel trawled up an unidentified carcass which some speculated were the remains of a plesiosaur, an extinct sea-going reptile from the age of dinosaurs.

Here’s an excellent article about that event and the conclusions some researchers have come to regarding the possible identity of the creature:
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/plesios.htm
And below, for your viewing pleasure, is video of the dead shark, courtesy of our friends at CNN.
NOTE: if the video does not work, here’s the URL:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1uagE_dzyk

What, if any, message are we to interpret from this massive crop circle that first appeared in Milk Hill, England on June 21?  The circle evolved over the course of a week, first found on June 21, with new additions found June 23, and the latest phase you see below appearing on June 30.  Is it a large scale hoax, or is it alien beings trying to communicate with us, perhaps trying to give us some warning?

If you live in Austin, you are most likely familiar with the local free publication The Austin Chronicle.  Each year, they give their readers the opportunity to recognize the best people, places and businesses the city has to offer with their annual “Best of Austin Reader’s Poll”.  

In 2007, shortly after we first opened our museum here in Austin, we were bestowed the prestigious title of “Best Bigfoot Hunters” by the Chronicle in their Critics’ Picks category. This year, we’re shooting for one of the main categories chosen by the readers: Best Museum! 
If you’d like to cast your ballot for us, all you need to do is go to this website, fill out the required information, and write “Museum of the Weird” in the blank for “Museum” (under the Arts and Entertainment category).  Only one ballot per person (please, no stuffing ballots or we’ll get eliminated from the competition). You only have until Tuesday, July 21, so please get those ballots in today!  Thanks in advance for your vote!  Here’s the URL:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/feedback/bestof/09/

When browsing the dearth of “Bigfoot” videos on YouTube, you’ll find there is undoubtedly an overabundance of unquestionably fake footage, usually in the guise of humor… and very poor attempts at humor, I might add.  But every once in a while, you come across something that may deserve a closer look. This is one of those videos. 
The man who shot the footage, Ed Runninghorse, claims to have filmed a video last month purporting to be that of a black hairy creature squatting or crouching, possibly in an effort to avoid detection. Runninghorse was exploring an area of Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area west of Forest Lake, MN.  He had been finding several mysterious “stick structures” in the remote forest that day, seemingly made by the hand of some intelligent being. As he was about to wrap it up and return to his vehicle, he caught a glimpse of “what appeared to be the size of a large man” running through the woods.  According to Mr. Runninghorse, “What really didn’t make sense was that it was solid black in color and moved with a swift, smooth motion.”  When he tried to chase it, it seemed to disappear. 
Later upon reviewing his footage, he was surprised to have caught something black, hairy, and very still crouching off in the distance. Could it be a Sasquatch? Watch the following video, then you decide.

Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI announced that the first-ever scientific dating of bones discovered in a hidden tomb under the alter of St. Paul’s Basilica in Rome “seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul.” Radio carbon dating performed on the bone fragments indicate they are from the first or second century AD.
The announcement came just a day after the Vatican reported the discovery of the oldest known icon of Paul found on a fresco inside another tomb that had been excavated, St. Tecia in Rome. 
St. Paul, one of the main Apostles of Jesus to spread Christianity after his crucifixion, is traditionally acknowledged  to have been beheaded in Rome under the emperors’ persecution of early Christians. It is widely believed that the bone fragments discovered in the tomb under the Basilica of St. Paul are the remains of his body, while his skull fragments are believed to be held in another basilica, St. John Lateran in Rome.