The Gable Film - Michigan Dogman, page 8

This whole hoax is a great example of the lengths people will go to, in order to trick people. And the level of authenticity that can be accomplished. The guy in the video is incredibly convincing as a unknown beast. I admit it had me fooled or at least wondering if it was real.

It shows how easy it can be to fake a crypto/alien/whatever video and how much work and motivation goes into this.

I think this video and story still have a lot of importance as evidence that a great fake video CAN be made and that people WILL go the extra mile to fool others.

So the next time you see a crypto/alien/whatever video and ask, why would someone go out of their way to trick people, you can reference this case.

I think this should also raise some questions about the Patterson-Gimlin film. I cant say for sure if that video is a hoax but there are people who WILL make the effort and evidenced by the dogman video, its possible to create a very convincing "monster" with a small amount of technology.

Glad this case is settled.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 08:41 PM by iamcamouflage

Also, a Mod should probably label this thread as HOAX in the title. We have definitive evidence that the video was manufactured.

Thanks.

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 01:43 PM by kidflash2008

reply to post by iamcamouflage

There were a few red flags with the Gable Film: The person who received it did not know who made it or where it came from, and most researchers were only given a digital copy of the film and not the original to examine.

The Patterson film has been examined by many experts, and it is known who made that film. Also, Patty is clearly seen, where as the Dogman is not so clearly seen in the other film.

The walking on all fours looks like a human in a suit, which is what I thought at first when I saw it. I also did not notice any wolf like features on said creature.

I believe the Patterson film is the real deal, as the creature had breasts, something they would not have thought of when faking it.

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 04:08 PM by drew hempel

reply to post by kidflash2008

Do an ats search -- there's a great youtube expose on the Patterson film -- showing how the bottom of the feet are flat and white -- SUIT -- and the achilles heel and back of the foot is totally wrong -- SUIT. Also the mid section turns as a whole with the back when he turns towards the camera -- revealing a single padding -- SUIT. Finally the dude who confessed to wearing the suit said they used a football helmet -- and sure enough a football helmet from that time period perfectly matches.

Oops forgot to mention the dude who confessed had MOOBZ.

[edit on 26-3-2010 by drew hempel]

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 07:41 PM by ZikhaN

Okay who necroed this thread?

EDIT: Oh man, I can't believe I posted in this thread over 3 years ago O_O

[edit on 26-3-2010 by ZikhaN]

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 07:50 PM by drew hempel

reply to post by ZikhaN

I think you mean THIS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where you quote the original poster of this current thread.

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 08:02 PM by iamcamouflage

reply to post by kidflash2008

I believe the Patterson film is the real deal, as the creature had breasts, something they would not have thought of when faking it.

I cant say for sure whether that video is real or not. It is a convincing video but so was the dogman video.

You say that breasts are something they would not have thought of, but thats exactly my point. You are not giving film makers and hoaxers enough credit. They do think of these small details for exactly the reason of making people think a video is more credible.

What i find the most strange about the PG film, is that in over 50 years of people actively searching for bigfoot, this video is by far the best evidence out there.

Our technology keeps increasing, there are thousands of trail cams set up in really remote areas and yet we still have no real evidence.

I also find it odd that P&G supposedly set out looking for a big foot and they find one on their first mission out and not one person has ever come close to having a real video like this.

Were they that lucky? First trip out to find a big foot with a super 8 and they manage to get this amazing footage? Seems a little fishy to me.

If I made a thread on ATS and said, "hey everyone, i'm going out camping tonight to look for bigfoot." and then tomorrow I post a video of a creature that looks like big foot, I would be destroyed as a hoaxer.

I or anyone else can conclusively prove that the PG film is real or fake. But I find it very suspicious.

I would love for bigfoot to be a real creature and I will not deny that there is some circumstantial evidence that points to something mysterious(footprints, a few inconclusive hair samples, random videos and lots of eye witness accounts) but this is not proof of anything. The videos are usually very blurry and shot from a long ways away, proving nothing. And the eye witness accounts only prove that people are easily freaked out in the woods and can misidentify animals.

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 08:03 PM by ZikhaN

reply to post by drew hempel

No no, what I meant is that there are 3 year old posts made by me in earlier segments of this thread(:

[edit on 26-3-2010 by ZikhaN]

reply posted on 26-3-2010 @ 08:15 PM by KennyArbs

It was on television the other night. It's a guy in a ghillie suit; one of those suits that snipers wear that's covered with camouflaged string and fabric.

Pages: << 5 6 7 8 >> ^^TOP^^