Sasquatch Coffee

Mammoth Footage Faked

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 13th, 2012

Not surprisingly, the so-called “Woolly Mammoth” footage was faked when someone blurred known video of the area and apparently added a computer-generated image to the footage.

The filmmaker, Ludovic Petho, writes:

I’m the guy that filmed the river footage in the Sayan Mountains that now hosts a fake woolly mammoth. It was taken in the summer of 2011, the river is the Kitoy river and I don’t recall seeing a mammoth; there were bears, dear and sable to name a few mammals but no woolly mammoths. I had no idea my footage was used to make this fake sighting and question if a law was broken here.

I filmed the river during a 10 day solo hike in the mountains in preparation for a year long journey starting soon. It will re-trace my grandfather’s epic escape from a Siberian POW camp in 1915 and his walk across Siberia to reach home, Budapest, in 1918. To date we have found a handful of others who escaped and made it all the way home, including the father of American businessman, George Soros, Tivadar Soros. We hope to find more. The documentary will be in 2 parts and be finished in time for 2014, there’s more information here if you wish.

Ben Radford, RobDev, and others have alerted us to this news. Few have posted the video statement from Ludovic Petho, but I felt you would like to see it.

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


55 Responses to “Mammoth Footage Faked”

  1. Leanne Milne via Facebook responds:

    see this pisses me off, my friend Mike said it best, cryptozoologists have it hard enough already trying to prove things without idiots faking stuff. Ugh!

  2. muircertach responds:

    Who didn’t see this coming.

  3. Harold Mahoney via Facebook responds:

    too good to be true…once again

  4. Mike Playfair via Facebook responds:

    Its had so much press coverage as well with even some usually respected papers such as Metro showing it as proof with not even mentioning that it came from a highly dubious source and is obviously as first pointed out a Bear.

  5. David M. Prus via Facebook responds:

    I knew it was too good to be true

  6. Graham Farr via Facebook responds:

    Duur…! So obvious.

  7. Connor Hutton via Facebook responds:

    kinda dead giveaway since the guys name was the same guy who faked heaps of alien videos on youtube

  8. fr33ky responds:

    That is awesome! :)

    I really wished it had been it had been a mammoth, I was convinced it was a bear and would love to find out exactly how this was done.

  9. Steve Schaper via Facebook responds:

    Rats!

  10. Leanne Milne via Facebook responds:

    Faking stuff just gives ammo to the sceptics and totally undermines any true evidence that might exist. They might find it funny, but the study of unknown creatures or animals which perhaps survived is a serious business! I hate it! Grrrr so frustrating!

  11. Neil Alexander-Ant Westwolf via Facebook responds:

    I love and hate faked videos. I love the controversy, but hate the let down when it is debunked.

  12. Jarid Eldridge via Facebook responds:

    That guy is a waste of human life.

  13. Christopher Stine via Facebook responds:

    Is anyone surprised?

  14. Neil Alexander-Ant Westwolf via Facebook responds:

    And to be fair, it DID look fake as it is….

  15. Mike Playfair via Facebook responds:

    Perhaps the only good thing to come out of this is that the hoaxer has been ‘named and shamed’ and more people and perhaps even the media will learn not to trust anything Michael Cohen produces in future.

  16. Matt Varden via Facebook responds:

    I think the moral of this story is, if you’re going to fake a wooly mammoth video, don’t make it look like a bear with a fish in its mouth. On the other hand, the documentary about the guys escaping from a Siberian POW camp sounds pretty epic.

  17. Graham Farr via Facebook responds:

    I can’t believe that people fell for this one… Wow.

  18. Kenji responds:

    Just wanted to get a told you so in here. :D

  19. Hapa responds:

    Videos, film, sightings, eyewtiness testimony, all comes down to sqaut: there must be a BODY!

  20. Ragnar responds:

    It was faked? No, say it isn’t so. We were all so convinced it was real.

    Come on, guys, we knew it was fake within the first day. That guy who “produced” it, Michael Cohen, is a known hoaxer.

  21. muircertach responds:

    I will say something good did come out of this. It exposed just how nasty some people can get over this stuff. A good number of the comments made on this video here were just embarrassing.

  22. vladkraven responds:

    What really gripes me isn’t that this was a faked video (which stinks), but all the “experts” chiming in convinced without question that the video was of a bear.

    They weren’t expressing an opinion, their posts were more along the lines of “this is a bear, and anyone that thinks otherwise is an idiot.”

  23. David-Australia responds:

    Just a coincidence I’m sure, but by those funny accents (hang on, what am I saying!), Ludovic Petho and Michael Cohen (hunt the latter’s down) both appear to be Australian.

  24. Aquahead Dan responds:

    Very cool. I didn’t suspect CGI. I did notice the ‘creature’ walked somewhat odd, but I figured that was because it was in the water. Very professional looking.

    Nevertheless, I am disappointed to see that this really wasn’t a Mammoth after all.

  25. William Smith via Facebook responds:

    Anyone that knows about animals would have seen that it was a bear. Their back legs are shorter than the front plus the silver looking thing in its mouth is obviously a fish. When I first saw this I knew it was a bear with a fish. Why it took so long to figure this footage out is beyond me???

  26. William Smith via Facebook responds:

    Plus it’s 2012, Why is the footage blurry? The video cameras are alott better now than the old camera used in Roger Patterson’s day, Whoeverver took this footage should have been close enough to know what it was, So who ever did it was perpertraiting a Hoax.

  27. Cryptomundo via Facebook responds:

    William, did you read the post? It explains that the video is a hoax and how it was done.

  28. Steve Schaper via Facebook responds:

    William, extreme zoom and focusing conditions can easily produce that blurriness. Perhaps you are not a photographer. Mammoths also have longer front legs than back legs.

    The image did not contain enough information to verify that it was an extraordinarily large fish.

  29. hoosierhunter2 responds:

    I’ll admit I was wrong. I really thought it was just a bear carrying a fish, but then I am much less into euphoric believing than critical thinking. And it is always far too easy just to say it’s all faked rather than try to offer a reasonable explanation.

    In this case given the area, a bear was much more likely but exaggerated by imagination and a desperate desire to believe in something that, while potentially possible, was not the most likely explanation; that is, a mammoth.

  30. thatericn responds:

    Occam’s Razor made me think it was a misidentified bear. Odd that whoever did the effects didn’t make the “mammoth” more obvious… Maybe he was trying for a cave bear with a fish? Ha!

    Good luck to Mr. Petho on his film. The endurance and determination of people who have journeyed across Siberia, fleeing Gulags and other imprisonment is amazing.

  31. PhotoExpert responds:

    Big Tom Slick–LOL How wrong you are or were! You tried to discredit the astute Cryptomundo readers and posters here. All of them were correct and you were completely, 100% wrong! So how does that foot of yours taste now? On a serious note, I do not take much satisfaction in gloating. However, I want to take the time to point this out as a moment where naive readers or newbies can learn something. Think of this as a learning experience. Be careful what you post and to whom you direct the negative comments at– they may and did come back to haunt you! Bottom line, you were wrong and the person or persons you tried to discredit were absolutely correct. Doh!!!

    The Forthcoming–You got it 100% wrong! Guess what? Again, I got it 100% correct, even though you disagreed with all of my comments. And I am sure Loren or Craig are too busy to keep score, as you suggested. But I have been keeping score. My record is there for all to see. From the Bigfoot Massacre to the Georgia Boys, all called correctly!!!I got another one right and you were absolutely wrong again. My perfect record is in tact no matter what you want it to be. Hey, don’t worry about Loren or Craig keeping score. Keep your own score on my record. It is there for all to see publicly as the times and dates are recorded as I post.

    Simply go back and read each and every comment I made when a hoax was trying to be perpetrated and you can see for yourself, I predicted each one correctly! Am I some kind of guru when it comes to cryptozoological predictions? NO, not at all. But I am an objective and professional observer and base my findings on facts. And that is the point I was trying to deliver to newbies and the readers and posters here at Cryptomundo. It is not the God-given talent that I possess that makes me correct on matters such as these. It is “common sense” and objective reasoning that prevails. You missed my point entirely and ended up on the short end of the stick. So don’t doubt my record of accuracy–just go back and read my posts and listen with open ears to common sense. The Forthcoming, pssst, how’s your record holding up of being correct? LOL If we listened to your opinion, sure, it is definitely a woolly mammoth in this video. Do you see how unintelligent it seems to all of us that knew it was not a woolly mammoth, even though you declared it as such? Doh!

    Opalman–Hey buddy! What’s happening? I told you that you would end up with egg on your face and sure enough, you did. Am I some kind of genius or prognosticator? Nope, not even close! But I do have common sense, the ability to reason objectively, and use the scientific method when considering all claims. You got this one completely wrong. Since I was correct, does this make me, as you put it, a “so called expert” or a true expert? Well, the jury is in and they all say “true expert” LOL

    I think we all know the answer to that question. I told you to beware of the Mr. Cohen connection to this and not to throw out eyewitness testimony or connections to the video. Instead, you took the path of trying to belittle the readers and posters here at Cryptomundo as being biased. Actually, it was you who were biased in the end. You basically declared this a woolly mammoth. Really? LOL

    We got it right and you got it, 100% wrong. It is not a case of sour grapes or anything like that. I am merely pointing out, that being a member here at Cryptomundo is a learning experience. Rather than trying to belittle the comments from others and being subjective in analysis, try being more objective! I can not only smell the coffee now, I can taste it! Doh!

    Opalman, The Forthcoming, and Big Tom Slick– I am not really trying to beat up on you guys. I really do not like gloating over being correct. However, I did take the time to give you all a little bit a verbal trouncing. Why? It is my hope that you learn from this experience. All of your opinions were based on a subjective belief that a woolly mammoth was seen in that video. Each and every one of you went the extra yard to try and discredit objective opinions. The problem for each of you three are things called facts. You all ignored the facts at hand. Actually, I could have been wrong in my assessment. I could have gotten it all wrong and you all three would be gloating and laughing at me, if this video turned out to be a woolly mammoth. It did not! But there is one important lesson I have learned in analyzing data over the years as a professional and that is, objectively analyzing the data draws it’s own conclusion. You all were blindsided by subjectivity and wanted to believe a woolly mammoth was seen in that video. You ignored the facts and red flags I pointed out and tried to discredit me and certain Cryptomund readers and posters, with insults, rather than arguing the facts. Nothing would have made me more happy if it were a woolly mammoth seen in that video, but the facts led me to a different conclusion than you three reached. And that is where we differ!

    It is awesome to have an opinion. In fact, I admire that. But when you discount blatant facts and disregard them in analysis because of your hopes or dreams, well, nothing good can come from that. If you disagree with someone’s opinion here, tell them why and back it up with data, real data and not a subjective opinion.

    Again, am not making light of your incorrect opinions. I am merely creating a memory point with some verbal stings, so that you do not make the same mistakes twice. Maybe next time, you will remember to think before posting, not attack the poster with insults, but rather attack the data or points made in the post. No one likes bullies! And if you subjectively and verbally attack posters without merit, than you may end up on the short end of the stick!

    Anyway, moving on, and waiting for the next try of a hoaxer trying to scam those who want to subjectively believe while disregarding facts and data. I hope to see all three of you here posting here at Cryptomundo, but doing so in an objective fashion and not slinging arrows at those of us who have a track record of success in analysis!

    That is all!

  32. Fred123 responds:

    Who didn’t see this coming? Who was surprised? Look back at the guys who were insisting that they KNEW that this couldn’t be a bear because they were such experts about animal anatomy and photography just a few days ago. And guess what, most of them will be saying the same thing the next time a poorly executed hoax hits this site.

  33. Richard888 responds:

    Hummingbirds in Siberia?

  34. CelticBull responds:

    I’m LOVING the outcome of this story!

    I’m not loving it for not being real, I’d love it to be real as much as any other user on here. I am loving it for not being a bear with a fish. It was a valid hypothesis and I am not judging anyone who said that it might be a bear…. but everyone who overruled any other possibility, or who cried out “how can’t you see it’s a bear”, they all got proven wrong. Hilarious.

    Of course they will not admit it now… now it’s “see… I said it’s not a mammoth”, but I will always know ;)

  35. THE REAL CMAC responds:

    I cannot for some reason open the link provided by the maker of the original video, but I assume his documentary is based on the story that inspired this movie?

  36. Biggi Ortiz via Facebook responds:

    Thank you for the not surprising update. Also this gives me the opportunity to find the first ALIVE woolly mammoth myself. ;)

  37. PhotoExpert responds:

    The Forthcoming– Just a quick apology but not the part on being 100% correct.

    My apology is that I directed a comment to you that was meant for another individual. You did not state that this was a woolly mammoth. I meant that for some one else, not you. You actually stated that you agreed with many of my points but called into my question as having a 100% correct prediction rate on faked videos here at Cryptomundo.

    So I do apologize for the part I posted about you stating that this was a woolly mammoth. You did not! In fairness to you, I just wanted to set the record straight.

  38. bobzilla responds:

    Well, first of all, Ludovic, good luck with your project. Seems quite daunting, but exciting. That does look like beautiful country indeed.

    Secondly, thanks for confirming what pretty much everyone thought anyway. Nice of you to speak up.

    And, although this is said to be “CGI”, it doesn’t have to be a digital mammoth composited into the video. It still can be footage of a bear with a fish in it’s mouth (which it still looks like to me!) composited into the stream footage.

    Any way, bad fake, but pretty good compositing job.

  39. choppedlow responds:

    Photo Expert, don’t let anyone tell you that you’re a humble winner. Still, it was funny reading posts of those who swore up and down that this was the real deal, even though they personally knew nothing of who took the video. The entire crypto world needs to stop putting faith in people’s video or photo evidence that they see online. It all means nothing. Funny stuff. I’m starting to suspect that Patty and this mammoth have a lot in common.

  40. DNS responds:

    What a great story! The real one, I mean, about Grandpa escaping and walking home. It’s difficult to even imagine such a journey, and I’m looking forward to watching the film. Anyway, I hope Mr. Petho can squeeze some kind of compensation from the vandals who stole his film. The mammoth thing was not particularly clever, and it really was no fun watching people go ape over yet another fuzzy video. There seems to be no end of fuzzy fake videos or people who should know better than to be taken in so easily.

  41. Peter Von Berg responds:

    Well, enough is enough. I am really tempted to say that with photoshopping and all other kinds of fakery that can be done with videos, that ANY videos are now worthless as evidence, and that only a live animal or a dead animal can be acceptable as proof.

    But I Will say that I personally will discount – a priori – any video that is:

    1. Blurry or

    2. Lasts only a few seconds.

  42. Hapa responds:

    Peter Von Burg:

    Hello :)

    “I am really tempted to say that with photoshopping and all other kinds of fakery that can be done with videos, that ANY videos are now worthless as evidence, and that only a live animal or a dead animal can be acceptable as proof.”

    Back in the 1920′s, two girls made fake photos that depicted Fairies and elves. The “little people” were so realistic that they convinced untold numbers of people for years, until the hoax was unmasked. This was the famous “Cottingley Fairies” Fiasco.

    See “Unexplained Phenomena: A Rough Guide Special”, by Bob Rickard and John Michell, page 120.

    see also

    If people can pull off such masterful hoaxes as far back as post-WWI Europe, then that should give us a warning about accepting so-called video and photograph “Evidence” in modern times wholeheartedly. They can be things to go on and investigate, but in and of themselves, they are otherwise Bullocks.

    The Saola, Megamouth Shark, Gorillas (Both Lowland and Mountain), and countless other species, were found by real physical evidence. Bodies, major parts of bodies, and or living specimens. That is Evidence. Not pics and videos, no matter how interesting (and the Mammoth video was quite interesting upon first view.) If you want to stop people making a joke out of Cryptozoology (and they do), get the real physical evidence, something other than tracks and hairs (even a hair strand proven by DNA sequencing to be from an unknown primate) will be scoffed at by scientists (which goes too far in my opinion, but it’s the way it is in science). That is what we need to tell those who venture out to seek such beasts.

    Bones, pelts, bodies, living specimens. If one tries to prove these animals exist without being dedicated to get the proper evidence, if they believe that footprints and eyewitness testimony in a trip is a success, then they are not, and perhaps never will be, SERIOUS.

  43. Desertdweller responds:

    My previous post (in the original thread) neither supported nor opposed the idea that the creature shown was a mammoth. I simply stated that the video should be evaluated solely on its own merits, not on the basis of the history of the person who submitted it. I’ll still stand by that principle.

    However, I will go ahead and say what Peter Von Berg is so tempted to say. In this age of photoshopping and other fakery, ANY videos are now worthless as evidence. Only a live or dead animal will be acceptable as proof.

    Actually, the older videos (like the PG film) are more credible, simply because the photoshopping capability of today did not exist back then.

    If I am correct, the implications are serious for cz. Anyone attempting to prove the existence of any cryptid will have to be prepared to kill their quarry. And thereby deplete an already thin population. We already have a lot of physical evidence for Bigfoot, but even that is not enough to convince the skeptics.

    This conclusion is the direct result of fakery of the sort in this mammoth case. When the most common form of documentation (videos or photos) can be faked so easily, all we are left with are casts of tracks and various unidentifiable DNA samples.

  44. bobzilla responds:

    Well, the fairies were made even more convincing because no one knew how something like that could possibly be faked, so it probably never crossed anyone’s mind that it was. Today, it’s quite easy, even for someone on a home computer with a little knowledge. You don’t need to be ILM or Weta to pull of a good video fake today.

    I think to get “a body”, so to speak, the person looking needs to narrow down the most likely places and stake out those areas for a LONG time. I don’t think people look in one place long enough due to finances, family, job. They can’t stay away in the woods too long, which is understandable.

    They need to go and become part of the environment. Or, live in a spot long enough so the wildlife becomes habituated with the person’s presence. If sasquatch are out there, they have to come out sometime. They have hunt or forage, defecate, urinate, mate, sleep, die. Eventually, if they exist, they should be more easily seen in their natural habitat.

  45. bobhelferstay responds:

    There should be a law against faking footage like this, and presenting it as real.

  46. William Smith via Facebook responds:

    I read the post. What I was trying to say was when I first saw it I knew it was a bear. But everyone on Youtube, Facebook and even Coast to Coast had a hard time figuring out if it was a Mammoth or not. I just get a little aggravated when people post things as soon as they get it and not investigate it further before they post it.

  47. William Smith via Facebook responds:

    I understand what your saying Steve, But if that was a Mammoth it would have been a Baby one, But the angle of the slope from the front legs to the back is not consistent with a Mammoth or an Elephant but it is for Bears.

  48. hoosierhunter2 responds:

    Photoexpert–I think you just lost the “Humility Award” but I can’t argue with your being right.

    Too many people on here were just to willing to believe–dare I say they were gullible?–especially on a forum where, as those interested in cryptozoolgy, we all should be very circumspect in jumping to conclusions. Some people on here quickly fell into the same unthinking rhetoric that we often criticize in those who are easily duped into thinking that fuzzy little image is a 8 foot tall humanoid, or that little black kitty is a 6 foot long black panther. And they did it with gusto! In short, they were as excitable as the people they often criticize in other very questionable videos. Hopefully, this is lesson learned. We should approach all such claims with healthy skepticism and demand physical proof, or at the very least be much much more guarded in our enthusiasm.

  49. Hapa responds:

    Bobzilla:

    There were some who viewed the Cottingly Faires skeptically since the beginning of that phenomena (its on the wikipedia article I posted).

    But yes, one method (perhaps the best and only true method) to get the proper evidence for Sasquatch is to partake of a long, long, long, long-long period of time in the wilderness. If it wasn’t so dangerous and creepy I’d say the best place might be in the wilderness of Nahanni Valley (also called headless valley, due to many being found with their heads missing! Other odd things and cryptids there too), but I think if one had enough supplies, equipment, and men, one could camp out that region and eventually meet the Hairy wild man.

    I am convinced there is a Sasquatch, but I don’t have the financial means and time and supplies necessary to do such. I wished somebody would…

  50. Aitkincountysasquatch responds:

    It was obvious from the start it wasn’t a Mammoth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  51. EnormousFoot responds:

    How can you believe this person that this is a hoax? A hoaxer is a dishonest person so therefore you can’t believe anything they are telling you. Mammy is a real wooly mammoth and you can’t convince me otherwise. Shame on you Wooly Mammoth deniers. You are so skeptical you can’t see the evidence right in front of you. This is a real animal.

  52. Opalman responds:

    @PhotoExpert: If the testimony is to be believed, (let’s all remember Ray Wallace),you turn out to be correct though I don’t see any reason for you to feel like an expert etc. Let’s remember things as they actually happened and thankfully we have an archive of posts to remind all of us of what we said.

    My only conclusive opinion as to the identity of the subject video was and was consistently and unambiguously that the supposed creature was not a bear. I also said repeatedly that I would require some sort of verifiable evidence that the subject was a product of CGI if I were to include it in my list of options;(this was rather close-minded on my part)!

    No one, including you was able to provide any concrete evidence for the CGI opinion. Overall there were very few possibilities as to the subject’s apparent image.
    Since circumstances of the filming are always presented in a subjective manner in these types of reports I choose not to make any deductions as to motives, past history or on site conditions other than to mention the obvious: foul weather=foggy lens, cold temps = short battery life etc.

    The wood bison hypothesis was a product of visual appearance; size, long thick beard that could appear as a trunk and lumbering gait. I threw it out there as another as to yet considered possibility.

    There are those of you that are still clinging to an obvious inaccuracy regarding the physiology of both bears and pachyderms. Several of you maintain that the bear’s front quarters (legs shoulders etc.), are higher than the rear. Enough already, as I correctly state in every post the bears back line is horizontal and parallel to any level ground it walks upon. The elephant’s front quarters are conspicuously higher than the rear. See mounted, articulated skeletons:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=bear+skeleton&hl=en&rlz=1C1RNNN_enUS367US423&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=KZA7T5CREY6Dtgei2cX5Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1680&bih=925

    PhotoExpert: I have no problem admitting I was wrong—none whatsoever. I’ve been wrong before:(once in 1977) LOL—only kidding! When I begin to see myself as infallible I believe it will be time to quit posting or even discussing such topics. Believing oneself to be infallible is THE cardinal sin in the sciences.
    I will here and now go on the record as stating that I have very little knowledge of CGI technology and no experience with it at all.
    Since you are the photo expert I had hoped that you’d be able to back up your CGI claim with verifiable evidence.
    Looking forward to many Crypto duals with you in the future.

  53. opin responds:

    OK, so we all knew this was fake from the beginning. I reported the same thing on my news show last week. This guy seems upset about the legal aspect, unfortunately, with the fair use doctrine this video seems legal. It is only a snippet and it is altered creating almost a parody of his original intent. Even though the hoaxer copyrighted the video he did so since the altered version is an original piece. The law is always fuzzy when it comes to copyright, but I would love for the video owner to collect damages. This would begin to teach the world that this sort of thing should be illegal and that it is wrong to fool people. Sadly, the creation of fake videos to fool the public is the fault of all of us in the anomalous world as so many of us believe it blindly. It has turned me into more of a skeptic than I ever thought I would be, but it’s become necessary since the scales have tipped so far in the believer direction.

  54. PhotoExpert responds:

    Opalman–Hey bud! It takes a real man to step up and acknowledge when they were wrong. Even if the only two times were now and in 1977. LOL On a serious note, I respect that immensely! You are one of the very few that ever come back and admit that they were incorrect. And you are also one of the very few that act like a gentleman when offering an opposing point of view. Because of that and because you are a fellow fisherman, you have earned my respect.

    I think it is great when two adults can have a mature conversation over subject matter, when they firmly stand oppositionally to one another. Kudos to us! At least we showed fellow Cryptomundians here how to have a lively debate without personally attacking one another.

    By the way, you may some very keen observations in your argument for the film ending early. Most people would not have thought of those issues. You did! It was just some of the many other red flags that you ignored. I think if you would have taken them into consideration, you might have reached a different conclusion. That’s why I tried to give you a heads up on Mr. Cohen being involved in the video in question.

    Opalman, also you are correct about the CGI stuff. It is so readily available and easy to use now, even a child can complete a short video. That is discouraging to me personally because it opens up all cryptozoologists to fakery and wasted time. I actually did talk about the CGI in my first post to you. The way the supposed mammoth walked looked strange and unnatural. I also pointed out how the supposed trunk of the mammoth was a different color than the rest of the mammoth and look disjointed from the body. I could have written a book on the data and facts why it might have been CGI. However, I felt it was sufficient to just list a few and concentrate on the more obvious red flags–video ending abruptly, highest brown bear concentration in Russia, Mr. Cohen being involved, etc. But in fairness, I did give examples. Maybe you did not read them carefully, but I did list them.

    OK, I am going to go and have that coffee now. Thanks! It’s on you this time, correct? LOL

    Seriously consider my one tip on fishing the Amazon though. I think it would be the best time you ever had fishing in your life. I caught over 100 of them on one particular day. Just awesome!

    I too am looking forward to many Crypto duals with you in the future. You my friend, are a worthy opponent and have definitely earned my respect!!!

  55. TheForthcoming responds:

    PhotoExpert – I don’t think anyone can be 100% right all the time especially in regards to Cryptozoology, but I suppose it is possible. Maybe right 98% of the time or something like that lol.

    But anyway, you, Loren, Craig and some others on here always have good points, like Loren does or Chad Arment in their books if you’ve ever read any of them regarding Cryptozoology, Zoology, Science, Hoaxes, etc. I am glad you don’t immediately believe everything you read or see but carefully investigate it and take it with carefully a grain of salt.

    I enjoy the study of logical fallacies and critical thinking, even though I am somewhat new to them.

    I was not 100% wrong, not right on this issue. I did offer my opinion of what I thought this video was, however.

    I dare you to tell the others there that you’re 100% right all the time, hehe.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.