New Gable film

I have been thinking about this all day. If you want to see the new Gable film, follow this link, but be warned, there are graphic images on the film of what may be the result of an animal attack.

Or it may be a prop for a movie.

Because I've had this thought, and I'm not saying this is what happened, but I can imagine it to have happened in this way..

Let me put it this way. Say I wanted to drive up the traffic for this blog. I've learned already that intriguing but inconclusive videos is one really fine way to do it. I've had some serious traffic spikes over some piffling video evidence, let me tell you. So let's say that I'm not the innocent and thoroughly honest blogsquatcher that you all know and love. Say I've got $$ in my eyes and I can't think straight about what's right and wrong anymore. Do you think there might be people like that out there? Hmm.. a couple of names leap to mind already, but put that aside. (I don't know any of the bloggers who have been involved in the release of the film material, so I am not characterizing them, I'm making a pointed hypothetical.)

OR, say I don't have a blog but I know all about old movie cameras and I get the idea that maybe I can sell the film to someone ala Ray Santilli and the Alien Autopsy film? Also not saying this is what happened necessarily, but would anyone really be surprised if either of these scenarios (or one I haven't thought of) turned out to be the case? I would say the list of surprised persons would be fairly short.

So is there any evidence of this being a set up? Looking at the videos that we see, I'm struck by the fact that the first video showed what appears to be the victim in the 2nd video. I have a video camera but you hardly ever see me on it unless I turn it around and film myself "Survivorman" style. Before I learned that technique, you simply never saw me on my films. But if you did, why would I choose to get, say, my wife to film me for a couple seconds while I chopped wood? That doesn't fit for me.

So why do we see the person who was supposed to be the owner of the camera in the original shots, and then again see that person as a mutilated body afterward? That's a tad convenient, and possibly evidence of a fictional technique.

Then there's the story of the uncle filmographer who mutters "bears have five toes, dogs have four toes" and loses his mind. I don't find the ring of truth here. I've seen many a fictional account of the paranormal that includes someone who is no longer present in the story driven insane by what they have witnessed, but I have never actually seen a witness driven insane. Again, this feels like a fictional technique to me.

So yes, there is textual evidence that this might be a set up. I'm not saying this has to be the case, but I suspect we are witnessing fiction here.

UPDATE: I have already begun plotting my movie..

From Icanhavecheeseburger.com