Sasquatch Coffee


“Woolly Mammoth” Spotted in Siberia (Updated)

Posted by: Loren Coleman on February 8th, 2012

Wow, first this month has produced a video of a “River Monster” in an icy river in Iceland. Now, allegedly, a “Woolly Mammoth” has been filmed in a rough-looking river in Siberia.

According to the English tabloid source, The Sun, this footage was taken by “a government-employed engineer last summer in the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug region of Siberia.”

Before this “incident,” supposed sightings of living mammoths in Siberia were recorded as recently as the 1970s.

Could this be a replica (obviously with a movable trunk) in a creek? Or is this proof of a mammoth cryptid in Siberia? Or a brown bear with a salmon in its mouth (see at bottom)?

Below is an extremely tiny image of a brown bear with a salmon from here, demonstrating that if viewed smaller than we are all use to, a bear can look like a mammoth:

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.


108 Responses to ““Woolly Mammoth” Spotted in Siberia (Updated)”

  1. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Mammoth or brown bear with a large fish in it’s mouth.

  2. Tim Dodson via Facebook responds:

    I didn’t see tusks.

  3. Michael Fawcett via Facebook responds:

    oh look, a bear carrying a fish across a river…never seen that before…!!! ;-)

  4. Fred Facker via Facebook responds:

    I also saw a bear with a fish. If that was a trunk, it would be held up out of the water instead of dangling.

  5. Graham Farr via Facebook responds:

    Yep.. Bear with it’s dinner.

  6. Miguel Cotto Sanchez via Facebook responds:

    Noooo… really? really? a blobmamoth. It seems sasquatch ain’t the only critter around with blurry images.

  7. fr33ky responds:

    Could this just be grainy footage of a brown bear holding a live and wriggling salmon by the tail? I really hope its genuine but something doesn’t look quite right.

  8. zim2918 responds:

    Looks like a grizzly bear carrying a fish across a stream.

    You refer to the video of the iceland serpent. That one looks like a puppet swimming through the water. You can even see the boat running parallel to it toward the end of the clip.

    Can we get some better special effects people in on this?

  9. David Mancha via Facebook responds:

    looks like a bear with a big fish

  10. paul_r responds:

    Looks like a russian bear with a fish dangling from it’s mouth.

  11. Ty Semaka via Facebook responds:

    It’s a very small mammoth with a fish colored trunk. :-)

  12. Dan Reidmiller via Facebook responds:

    I’d go with the bear thing, although I see what appears to be an ear flapping (larger than a bear’s ear).

  13. Indrid Cold via Facebook responds:

    not buying that at all …. so out of focus as to ensure it’s a dubious, at best, clip.

  14. Ellen MacNeil via Facebook responds:

    happy bear with a salmon!!

  15. Steve Schaper via Facebook responds:

    I see the tusks and mammoth-sized ear. Coupled with the DNA analysis of the hair samples, I’m not willing to write this one off, yet.

  16. William Bubba Craigens via Facebook responds:

    Sasquatch in mammoths clothing???

  17. BipolarQueen responds:

    I’m calling hoax. A mammoth would hold it’s trunk above the water line.

  18. Paul Hammond via Facebook responds:

    Bear with a fish?

  19. No.24 responds:

    It’s bunk… If it was a Woolley Mammoth they would have showed it walking up the other side of the river. It’s A BEAR…

  20. Alexandra Pinkie Hughes via Facebook responds:

    Doesn’t even look like a living creature to me, more of a computer animation but that’s just me ;p

  21. Steve Schaper via Facebook responds:

    Maybe, but I don’t think so. They also found hair that DNA tests as mammoth hair, and there have been reports for generations. That would be one huge fish, the bear would have to have the profile of a mammoth, and the ears of the mammoth, and possibly tusks. Only iffy thing for me is where the trunk is held, and that CGI is so good these days.

  22. BipolarQueen responds:

    Scratch than– I looked up elephants crossing a river on Youtube, and they didn’t hold their trunks above the water. Still looks questionable, though.

  23. Jeff Kart via Facebook responds:

    What?!?

  24. Ron Dooley via Facebook responds:

    Bear with fish for sure!

  25. hoosierhunter2 responds:

    The “trunk” is a different shade than the body. So it is a bear carrying a fish (or something) in its mouth.
    No story here unless it turns out to be a supposedly extinct Cave Bear carrying an unknown species of arctic Coelacanth.

  26. watn6789 responds:

    So cool!

  27. PhilMeik responds:

    I have to say I really doubt this is a bear. First of all why is he crossing the river with a fish? He starts off right next to the other bank and if he just caught it you would imagine he would head to the close side to eat it. Never heard of a bear traveling with food. Secondly look up pictures of a grizzly crossing a river vs an elephant crossing a river. Grizzlys seem to have a flat back whereas mammoths unlike elephants and mastodons have a pretty significant upward slope in their back making their head quite a bit taller than their hind quarters. Also since it is heading to the center of the river it should be heading somewhat downhill and if it was a bear I would expect its head to be at least even with its hind. At first I thought it was suspicious that its trunk is underwater but after looking at elephants they do the same thing. The other thing I have heard mentioned is the camera. “why is so awful and why didn’t he zoom in”. Well maybe he was zoomed in. Most camera phones dont have a true zoom function, they have digital zoom which sure it makes the picture bigger but it decreases the quality which is what this reminds me of. Either this is an elaborate hoax with a man made fake mammoth or it is the real thing. I really doubt this is a bear with a fish. What do you all think?

  28. Matt Varden via Facebook responds:

    It’s a bear with a fish. Taimen can get up to 150 pounds, easily big enough to be the fish in the video. But just because this video is of a bear does not mean there can’t be mammoths in remote Siberia; there is a lot of unexplored wilderness out there!

  29. Paul Hammond via Facebook responds:

    My girlfriend suggested a bear with a fish, I thought dodgy CG, the water in front of it just looks odd.

  30. Nathanael Molnár via Facebook responds:

    im pretty sure its a bear w/ a fish although its moving really slow which is weird

  31. Nathanael Molnár via Facebook responds:

    but i looked at it again and it looked completely different. i swear i saw tusks and a trunk and everything. its like if u go looking for a bear u see a bear but if u look for a mammoth u see a mammoth. idk about this one

  32. Nathan Colpitts via Facebook responds:

    I would believe a mammoth before I’d believe a bear with a fish. It would have to be an enormous bear with an equally huge fish. Unless the trees on the bank are significantly smaller than they look. Also, it has big floppy ears that you can see waving about. As it is though I’ll make CGI my first choice, just to be skeptical.

  33. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    If I was in the Russian wilderness and came across a mammoth, I would take another shot of vodka and follow it to get a better video or pic. But it does look cool, though, more like a mammoth than a bear to me. If it’s a fake, somebody in the advertisement business needs to hire its maker.

  34. John Gonyea via Facebook responds:

    I’d say bear with a fish, something just looks off about the supposed trunk

  35. Cryptomundo via Facebook responds:

    The link has been updated with an image of a long-distance bear with a fish that resembles an elephant/mammoth. Take a look.

  36. Matthew Pfeifer via Facebook responds:

    Maybe not a mammoth, maybe the Kanchatka Bear!!

  37. Steve Schaper via Facebook responds:

    I’d like to see what the image stabilizer and super-resolution people can do with this. I find the report of hair samples and DNA intriguing.

  38. Colette Talkington via Facebook responds:

    Looks like a bear walking w/ the head of a fish in its mouth so the tail dangles downward resembling a trunk. Would be cool tho!

  39. lordoftheonionrings responds:

    The anatomy and gate is all wrong for it to be a bear, looks very pachydermish to me.

  40. semillama responds:

    Weird. Really weird. I watched it four times and it is not a bear with a fish; a large ear, tusks, and a long snout are visible. Estimating size is difficult. I have to say, although you can’t rule out a nice wooly mammoth costume with two guys in it, this is probably the most intriguing cryptid video I’ve seen recently. One issue with the hoax possibility is it seems pretty dangerous to me to try and ford a wide, swiftly flowing river in a bulky, clumsy elephant suit – the risk of falling and drowning while being swept away seems pretty great. But, people do incredibly stupid and dangerous stunts all the time, too.

    Does anyone have a good link for an elephant crossing a stream at the same relative depth (just above the belly)? It would help for comparing movement.

  41. Devin Cook via Facebook responds:

    Very fake. I think it’s digital. It isn’t even displacing any water.

  42. PhilMeik responds:

    And another thing I keep reading “why wouldn’t you run right up to it and get a real close shot” Really? Think about this would you actually go running up to a wild elephant even if it were alone. These are huge beasts that are a hell of alot faster than humans. Gotta say I would keep my distance if I were actually there and not simply spouting heroic ideas from a keyboard.

  43. Richard Somebody via Facebook responds:

    For the non-Brits on here, The Sun is a barrel-bottom tabloid that has never let facts or decent journalism get in the way of a headline. Caution is advised. Also, it’s owned by Murdoch, who has used his press outlets to pimp upcoming releases of the Fox entertainment group, recently by showing authentic looking, ‘amateur’ viral videos. The chimps with guns etc from last years Planet of the Apes films being an example. Until further verification arises, I’m staying very skeptical on this one. Having said all that, I’d LOVE it to be real!!!

  44. Jack Straw via Facebook responds:

    i agree-but it seems to be a bear with fish in mouth-you can see the bear shape and fish hanging from mouth-

  45. Jack Straw via Facebook responds:

    it is real but its a bear with fish in mouth

  46. Nominay responds:

    No way. Is it not more probable that this is photoshoped? It’s definitely brown and with what appears to be a trunk.

  47. Sune responds:

    For me this looks more real than fake.. The trunk seems separated from the head only for one reason – a tusk. Actually, it’s possible to see it for a short while in the beginning of the film – a white glimpse for a short moment. And the ear that flaps – that is an elephant, simply cannot be a bear.

    But mammoth? Or maybe another extant og “extinct” elephant species… would love to go and check..

  48. Twiggy Voorhees via Facebook responds:

    R they sure they didn’t just play Skyrim and that’s we’re they saw the mammoth

  49. DWA responds:

    Well this one looks interesting.

    Bear looks like an easy answer. But it looks way too big and much more like a pachyderm than a bear. If that’s a fish in its mouth, it’s a requiem shark.

  50. bray_beast responds:

    I’m pretty sure that’s an elephant of some sort. What I’m not sure about is the location. Asian elephants are often brownish. It seems to me that it could be any river coming off the Himalayas.

    I seem to remember an episode of Animal X that found Nepalese elephants that were larger than average Asian elephants. Anyway, I question the location of the video and the conclusion that it’s a mammoth.

  51. watn6789 responds:

    Does anyone remember this footage from before?

  52. Linda Dantonio via Facebook responds:

    I agree – bear with something in it’s mouth – plus the fact it’s so foggy – could be a sign of PS. Also, one of my friends notes the difference in the water moving before it and then after it.

  53. Nny responds:

    So, I’ve watched this video a few times now.

    Initial reaction: “Oh my god, that’s a woolly mammoth.”

    After checking back and reading comments: “Hm, maybe it’s a bear with a fish in it’s mouth.”

    So I watched it a couple more times.

    Indeed, I can see how it looks like a bear with a fish. That makes a lot of sense. However, since my initial viewing, I saw what looked like and what has been described as, a tusk. There is something white that appears for a second or two in the video, I believe before it gets zoomed in.

    However, a swinging fish I believe could create the illusion of a tusk, due to the dark color or animal and fish and the white/lighter background. That would explain why the tusk is seen for as briefly as it is.

    More so though, someone mentioned an ear flap. I can see that too. I’m not so sure I’d call it an ear flap, but there is movement on the side of the head. Could just be fur and skin. Maybe an ear.

    Current conclusion: Best cryptid video this year. It’s fun, it’s interesting. Way better than that serpent video posted a day or so ago. I watched that one I think twice and concluded, “Yeah, probably debris.”

    Great post Loren. I wish all the updates would be as fun.

  54. Scott Haire via Facebook responds:

    ummmm why are there no splashes by its feet as it moves through the water, it also at one point seems to be moving faster than the legs are moving……….lol

  55. Nny responds:

    Oh, and one more thing I guess.

    Where is the rest of the video? And yes, I mean the rest where whatever it is gets done crossing and comes out the other side.

    That probably give us a much better idea as to whatever it is. So, it’s probably nothing, citing the lack of finished crossing.

  56. PhotoExpert responds:

    Well, a very interesting video clip. I wish there were more to it. I have problems with clips such as this. They always seem to end a bit prematurely and for me, that is a red flag!

    The actual clip looks interesting at first glance. However, why the videographer did not continue filming as the subject approached the shoreline, is beyond comprehension. Seriously, if any one of us here at Cryptomundo, were filming an alleged “woolly mammoth” that was walking across a river, wouldn’t each and every one of us, continue filming as it walked out of the water and onto land? Wouldn’t we continue filming until the alleged mammoth walked out of site and disappeared into the woods? Of course we would!

    But in this clip as in all of these types of clips, they end before the subject gets out of the water. Why? Because if the videographer were to continue filming, the subject in question would become identifiable as a known species or fake. The clip only looks interesting while the animal is not identifiable as a known species. And if it is CGI, it is easier to fake just the top half of the subject. When you add in all those leg movements and water dripping from the supposed cryptid, that is a lot of work. For a faker or hoaxer, it is best to keep the bottom half of the supposed cryptid hidden. Hoaxers don’t like to work hard at showing leg movement and water dripping from a beast.

    With that being said, something just looks a bit odd to me when viewing this clip. Besides the telltale sign of the video ending before the alleged mammoth steps onto land, something just does not look right. The trunk is a different shade or color than the rest of the “mammoth”. Yes, perhaps that is not too big of an issue. Maybe mammoth trunks are devoid of hair and thus show up as a different shade than the rest of the body. But the way the trunk moves does not look natural. If you watch videos of elephants, the trunk moves fluidly. The trunk in this video almost looks broken or jointed as it approaches the head. So the trunk issue is my second red flag for this clip.

    The third red flag is the way the limbs move through the water. I notice that the front left leg seems to move similar to an elephant walking normally. That looks pretty good. But watch the front right leg. That leg has an odd look as the alleged mammoth walks. It barely moves or does not move as natural as the left leg moves. Hmm, maybe it is an injured mammoth and that would explain the odd leg movement. Or perhaps it is a bear carrying something in it’s mouth, a salmon or a discarded garbage bag with food in it.

    If it is a bear carrying a garbage bag or food item, that would explain the disjointed or broken trunk that I mentioned earlier. It would also explain the different color of the trunk from the rest of the animal. If it is a bear carrying something in it’s mouth in that strong of a river current, it would also explain the the odd movement of the front right leg. A bear would not weigh as much as a mammoth. Therefore, the river current would effect the movement of the bear greater than it would a mammoth. The bear would have to stabilize itself using the leg nearer the opposing current, especially if it were carrying something in it’s mouth. Lastly, if it were a bear carrying something in it’s mouth, we would all readily see that in the video as the bear came ashore. Oh, that’s right, there is no video of that as the video conveniently ends before the “mammoth” comes ashore. Therein, lies your answer!

    If it is not a mediocre attempt at CGI, it is a pixelated video of a bear carrying something in it’s mouth and the video ending before the creature comes ashore. Hmm, I’m going with BEAR!!!

    Of course, if I were on a real TV show called “Finding Mammoths”, I would declare this video as evidence of a woolly mammoth and say it looks “mammothy”. I would declare the mammothiness of the area as perfect habitat for mammoths. I would say that we all know that mammoths hold their trunks like that crossing a river and so on and so on, even though we have never seen a live mammoth on which to base a remark like that. Of course, I am making fun of comments I have heard on certain TV shows. But the same reasoning applies.

    Could there be mammoths in Siberia that exist today? Who knows, maybe! Is this video clip that ends conveniently too early, proof of a mammoth living in Siberia today? NO! Could it be CGI, most likely not but if some CGI were thrown in, it was a rather mediocre attempt. The video would have looked exactly like a mammoth with less ambiguity, if a real effort were made with CGI. Is it a bear holding something it it’s mouth. Most definitely! And that is why the video ends prematurely. We all would know what it was when the bear came ashore. The the video was edited intentionally, just before that point and declared to be a mammoth.

    End of story!

  57. PhotoExpert responds:

    My comments above were posted assuming that this video was actually filmed in Siberia.

    For those Cryptomundians that insist that the subject of this video is some kind of elephant, you could be correct. This may just be a video of an Asian elephant but if that is the case, the video was not taken in Siberia, still making this a hoax.

  58. Bipedal_Bill responds:

    Take a look at the white cap in front of the bear/mammoth towards the rear. It moves with the animal. In a river these whitecaps are usually due to a stationary rock in the stream bed. This makes me think that someone took a short and cropped clip of a bear and moved it slowly across the stream, giving the illusion of the gate of a pachyderm. Why would that white cap move with the bear? If you closely watch the pattern in the white cap, it seems like it might repeat.

  59. EvilEmpire responds:

    Definitely very peculiar. As already pointed out, the walk seems off for a bear, and is more elephant like. Grizzly bears are more flat backed and the old school big boys have a big hump in their back, but it’s generally a clear hump as opposed to a strong slanting upward build that this one has.

    I also for a split second saw what appeared to be a big floppy ear and a tusk.

    It would be strange for a bear to not just hop to the bank and eat the fish right away. Rarely (based on what I have seen/read/watched) would it just carry the fish off all the way to the other side to eat. They generally catch and eat, catch and eat. Possibly it would be taking it to cubs, but even then, it would be strange for a momma bear to get that far away from her cubs all the way across the river as they tend to keep them close by to protect them.

    After watching it several times, it still doesn’t really look like a bear with a fish to me. But…it probably is.

    here’s a similar style video of grizzly catching a fish. Only for a brief second as it emerges up the slope of the bank does it give a similar slanted build.

  60. patspain responds:

    The logical part of me know that this is the most likely assessment, and Occam’s razor tells me it is a bear =)

    BUT

    there is a big part of me (mostly the part that re-read and re-read books about mega-fauna, mostly sloths and mammoths) who wants it to be true…almost enough to convince myself that I see a mammoth ear…

    -P

  61. Redrose999 responds:

    While the child mega fauna buff part of me wants to squee mammoth on first glance, the grown up practical part of me can’t ignore the miss colored trunk looks like a fish, so bear with fish is my vote. And it’s still cool…..

  62. stranger responds:

    I think it is either an elephant or a mammoth. Somebody needs to tell us exactly where this footage was taken so that it may be confirmed. On scene, we can determine the size of the subject and hopefully pick up some physical evidence.

    If this is not a hoax, the location should be forthcoming. A mammoth is going to damage foliage and leave droppings of considerable size. The site should be an excellent base to start investigations. Heck, something that big should be easy to spot with IR from a surveillance drone or chopper.

  63. hoosierhunter2 responds:

    It seems there is a lot of wishful thinking going on here. I was very intrigued until the camera zoomed in and then it was extremely obvious that it’s a bear. The trunk is the wrong shade for the rest of the bear so it must be a fish. Bears do carry their food to the shore to eat, particularly if it has hungry cubs somewhere. If it is an elephant and not a bear, then the tusks are awfully straight for a mammoth and looks more like the tusks of a walrus. It definitely is not a walrus!! It is simply a bear seen from the distance with a fish in its mouth.

  64. Hapa responds:

    This is perhaps the most fascinating, most interesting Cryptid video I have seen in years. Not only is it something unique (there are more supposed vids of Bigfeet and Nessies than I care to recall, but how many Mammoth vids have you seen out there?), It is far, far less unbelievable than the usual oh-its-so-a-hoax vid that usually haunts the web. I cannot at this time say with anywhere near 100% certainty whether this is a legit find or a clever fake. Makes me wonder if this is not another advertising strategy for some upcoming movie/documentary.

    There have been sightings of Mammoths in Siberia: even the book version of the documentary series “Walking with Prehistoric Beasts” confirms the sightings. At first I didn’t think there would be a real chance something THAT BIG could remain undetected in modern times; I often thought of Siberia as open tundra and terrain, not heavily forested, and Mammoths, unlike Mastodons, lived in open country. But then again, perhaps a small population adapted to a forest environment (like the African Forest Elephant) and survives to modern times.Seeing on by Satellite might be brushed off as a Bear without closer inspection. Perhaps we have a discovery on the way?

    Still, we need bodies, parts of bodies, or live specimens. We will also, if they exist, need protection for these beasts after discovery,military protection and Ultraharsh anti-poaching laws. But before they can get such protection, evidence must be gathered. Real evidence, not film. EVIDENCE.

  65. Colleen Lorenz via Facebook responds:

    Bear carrying something in its mouth.

  66. William responds:

    I don’t see tusks and what would be the trunk of a mammoth looks disjointed – so my guess is it is a blurred shot of a bear with a long fish it is holding its mouth. Pretty neat though.

  67. bray_beast responds:

    Could be a bear with a sturgeon. Could be an elephant. I still hope it’s a mammoth.

  68. springheeledjack responds:

    PhotoExpert and others hit the nail on the proverbial head…if someone reallllly caught what they thought was a wooly mammoth on film, why would they turn the camera off after a few seconds? Really? No, if you saw something like that and honestly thought you were seeing something supposedly extinct, you would film the thing until it disappeared, threatened you, or you ran out of film. I’m not buying into it.

    The shape at the front of the head doesn’t fit with the rest of the body. It doesn’t fit as a trunk, there were no tusks, etc. The object is presumably a fish, but it could be a piece of drift wood–why a bear would do that I don’t know, but I don’t think its part of the critter.

    I was excited at the headline, but sadly it doesn’t hold up…

  69. Jimmy Ray via Facebook responds:

    I dont see a bear, I see what might be a trunk, either way, not real clear footage, could be anything

  70. Sebastian Wang via Facebook responds:

    The body shape is more like a mastodon than a mammoth.

  71. Megatherium responds:

    The biggest red flag to me is not the content of the video itself – which is questionable in my opinion – but the length of the darn thing! Why so short? In an age of gigabyte capable video phones and palm sized camcorders capable of even better video we should see a longer clip – especially if the shooter thought the subject was something notable – which he obviously did for it to ultimately make it here. I suspect that if longer video did exist that it showed the bear devouring the fish that was caught in the river….resulting in case closed.

    Like others here though I wouldn’t be surprised if some wooly mammoths still survive in the vast taiga regions there.

  72. irishisc responds:

    I think it’s pretty obvious that what we have to worry about most is draculas. This is clearly a dracula carrying a small fish across a river. Maybe the fish needed a lift. Who really knows? These are the same people that brought us the Yeti cave last month.

  73. Cryptidcrazy responds:

    To me, it looks like a CGI hoax. It moves rather weirdly. Not very realistically. I’m not saying that there couldn’t be a small pocket of Mammoths in a remote part of Siberia, but this just doesn’t look real to me.

  74. bccryptid responds:

    It’s an out of focus video, but if he claims it’s a mammoth, then sure, you can see short tusks and smallish ears in the video (and small eyes if you squint), I do not see a bear, the head is too big and the snout is all wrong. If that’s a salmon that’s one weird looking salmon, way too big and long if that’s a grizzly holding it. More likely a branch in it’s mouth than a salmon…

    Bigger question is, why would he not focus the camera, and keep filming until it was out of sight? That is the far more puzzling question to me. No idea what this ‘is’, but the fact that he didn’t even attempt to focus and didn’t keep filming tells me it’s a hoax. Could it be fuzzy video of an Indian elephant crossing a river? The terrain does not look like India…

  75. Big Tom Slick responds:

    After a frame by frame analysis, it is clear that this definitely IS NOT a bear, and it definitely IS some type of elephant.

    No known bear species has a head and neck structure like this animal has. Bears have relatively long necks and their upper bodies are smaller than their lower. Only a severely deformed bear would look like this.

    A tusk can clearly be seen in the first few frames of the close-up sequence, and at two separate times later in the sequence, the ear can be seen flapping out from the side of the head and then back in again.

    It is quite obviously an elephant, but the question of what kind if elephant is now the mystery. Simply an Asian elephant or an actual woolly mammoth?

  76. John Kirk responds:

    Look at the provenance of where this video comes from. The Sun.

    The Sun is an utterly untrustworthy newspaper. As a Liverpool supporter (fan for our North American readers) I have never forgotten the lies The Sun’s reporters told about Liverpool supporters when 96 of our number died because of negligence by those overseeing the game at Hillsborough in Sheffiled during an FA Cup match.

    The Sun accused our supporters of robbing our own dead by going through the pockets of those who had died. This was patently false and to this day in Liverpool a campaign continues encouraging people not to buy The Sun. They still have not apologized 22 years later for making up that sordid rubbish about our supporters.

    The head of the animal in the photo is nothing like a mammoth’s. It rudimentarily resembles that of a Mastodon, but that is not what it is. I watched this full screen on a 32 inch monitor and you can clearly see the ears of a bear on this thing. It is a bear clutching something in its teeth.

    While there might be living mammoths and mastodons, this isn’t one of them.

    YNWA.

  77. Big Tom Slick responds:

    More on the tusk: The tusk that is plainly visible in the first few frames is extremely curved, so much so that it is pointed right back at the animals own head.

    This type of curvature is exactly the same as the woolly mammoth’s; as opposed to Asian elephants that have very gradually curved tusks.

    This makes it all the more likely that this is a living mammoth.

  78. Big Tom Slick responds:

    And finally, the slope of the back: Whereas Asian, and even African, elephants have relatively even backs with a slight rise in the middle, this elephant’s back slopes downward from the shoulders to the rear: Also a classic mammoth trait.

  79. jewpunxxx responds:

    100% a bear i have seen bears of all shapes and sizes this is a bear possibly a large female bringin the fish back to her cubs who are off frame hiding from predators, i wonder though how many people would of come to that conclusion had they not included that possibility in the article itself, it appears to walikng across the river, very carefully so as to not drop the fish, and at an odd angle, or it has been filmed at an odd angle. Which is what is giving it its pachydermesque look. Sorry but there are no wild mammoths left on earth, no way, unless they released a clone into the wild,lol. Sasquatch i am on board with large intellegent primates hiding in the woods with plenty of good circumstantial video evidence and track casts to support it. But a living population of mammoths, no way not in siberia, pachyderms hiding in jungles we dont know about i could buy that, or even the prehistoric ground sloth in the amazon, sure i believe it could be, but a mammoth no way, there would be at least one small HERD of them they move in herds and as nig as they are no way they could stay hidden. We will get a genetically engineered one soon i do believe though and then perhaps we may get to see them back in the wilds until then mammoths are extinct everywhere

  80. wtewalt responds:

    This is clearly a bear. What gives it away is the size of the beast. The river depth can be judged by looking at the rocks on the nearby shore and it isn’t that deep. A mammoth at the distance implied by the video would easily clear this stream. As Bipedal_Bill noted, the whitecaps move with the beast, which suggests this is an overlay of a bear crossing a stream somewhere else. Further, it is highly unlikely that the only video captured was while in the water, with no entry or exit.

    I would love to be wrong and find out this was in fact a mammoth but I’m calling it a hoax.

  81. Phantomgrift responds:

    I lived in Alaska for ten years and routinely saw that sight crossing rivers while camping.
    It’s a large bear with a dead fish in it’s mouth.

  82. David-Australia responds:

    It’s progress through the water looks rather too “fluid” to be real – no apparent change in speed or upward/downward movement that you would expect from encountering stones on the bottom and having to get over them.

  83. Opalman responds:

    Hi Ladies and Gentlemen;
    Regarding the woolly mammoth video I would like to go on record with a few comments. I notice that a great many posters base their suppositions regarding any evidence on the imagined actions or reactions of the videographer. This makes no sense as any of a thousand reasons can result in a films start and stop points. Maybe the media ran out, maybe he crapped his pants, maybe it looked directly at him and he got spooked and so on and on and on!
    So many comments like ’he didn’t continue filming the subject until it disappeared.’

    @No 24 “they would have shown it walking up the other side.”

    @ Nny; “Where is the rest of the video“…etc

    @PhotoExpert “wouldn’t he continue filming” ,“As the a video convienently ends” Plus all the above same; seemingly ad infinitum LOL.

    @ Bipedal_Bill; Since the whitecaps move with the animal the animal is fake???; “it moves with the animal”. This one is amazing: of course a moving object carries with it a moving wake, the wake is a result of water damming up against the animal and causing visual turbulence, (whitewater)! This is a solid piece of evidence that the animal was not photoshopped. Let anyone try to cross a body of fast water such as we see in the video with or without some huge cumbersome prop…be ready for a quick hypothermic death, (They say its not a bad way to go: after a very few minutes you get first numb (after the shivers go away) then you actually feel warm and comfy only wanting to sleep.; then lights out!) The fast river water in Siberia in summer is around 55 deg F. You’ll have maybe 8-12 minutes in the current which compounds water temp just like wind chill does air.

    I’m not trying to make anyone feel silly or even mistaken but in the field of cryptozoology we have to raise questions wherever they crop up. Pointing out ridiculous conclusions is a part of the process whereby we all learn. A good thing.

    Now in case anyone cares, here’s my analysis based on personal field observation (verifieable), of other animals and large fast water etc.
    The subject is totally out of conformation for a bear (wrong body shape, gait and size) Bears do not cross fast water to get to the other side unless theres a very unique reason, one that I can‘t even imagine. (read rare). Bears just don’t fish in bodies of water this swift and wide (large) as they would never even see the odd, occasional trout or salmon. They wait for the spawning run at narrow falls in very shallow water. They scavenge dead salmon oftener than catch live. The subject’s “fish” looks like a stout trunk possibly with thick brown hair to me.

    @Matt Varden via facebook; Tiaman doe not inhabit Siberia. The tiaman is a vey large trout member of the salmon group known as Hutchens that is found in the Volga anfd Yana river drainages of the Mongolian and Amur district of Russia. The Tiaman’s maximum size is about 100 lbs and 58” according to IFGA record. It is rumored that Tiaman get larger but this is not proven. Tiaman are not migratory or schooling but solitary the chance of a bear catching one in wide, fast water is zilch. I have personally fished the Amur where it forms the border between Mongolia and China, I caught very few fish and all were small. Barbless hook fly and catch / release only. Should anyone desire the fishing trip of a lifetime check this area out. Some of the most splendid scenery on the planet. I can provide you the contact for what I believe is the very best outfitter / guides available. Be sure to bring one of your larger piggy banks though; LOL. I should also remind you that only two species of salmon are andromonous in Asian waters: the Masu Salmon and the Biwa salmon. The main thing is though that all salmon spawn in shallow relatively calm, pebble bottom areas of their natal estuaries.

    Any zoologist will happily explain to you why and how pachyderms use their trunks exactly as we use an arm with hand. He’s keeping it submerged just as I would my arm to make a stabilizing grab at a rock or other structure or balance himself that much more easily. They do this in moving water all the time.

    I’ve studied the video carefully and compared it to my own photography of African elephants taken at both far and close range. Ditto for videos and stills of Alaskan brown bears. I have vivid memories of what both animals look like in person and how they move and what their gaits look like.The film subject doesn’t even remotely resemble a bear; I fail to understand how anyone can arrive at such a preposterous conclusion. Prove this for yourself by googling bear skeletons and elephant skeletons (or better; mammoth skeletons) before making such a ridiculous statement. They’re not even close guys????

    I think we’re getting too biased in favor of the hoaxer argument out there. Not being able to see the forest for the trees; as they say. In all the posts except a very few I can find no examples of real scientific reasoning only subjective supposition that seems to be based on hunches only.

    When I look at this video closely I see a very large pachyderm crossing a very fast river. Using visual perspective I estimate (at best an educated guess) the animal to be considerably larger than an African elephant, very hairy (brown) and quite determined to go someplace once they make the decision. (another pachyderm trait BTW) I see what very much appears to be at least one small tusk and a relatively small ear which flaps just like it should. I am very, very sure whatever it is; is much larger than the largest shortfaced bear that ever lived let alone a whopper Eurasian brown bear..

    Sorry if I’m stepping on anyone’s toes with my way of responding to what I feel are goofy presumptions. This is cryptozoological discussion not popularity 101…right? I do understand and appreciate that many have not been as fortunate as I in having such great opportunities to observe so many species in the wild.

    If you couldn’t already tell; I’m very excited regarding this discovery. I wish you all well.

  84. Opalman responds:

    Sorry about all the typos, my MS Word is somehow locked and I can’t figure out how to unlock it.

  85. Kitsos responds:

    Afraid this is a fake.
    Take a closer look at the “foam” seen front and rear of the “Mamoth” best seen in close-up section. In both areas it keeps more or less the same shape/shade, something one would not expect from a large moving animal in fast, rough water. One would expect to see a fair bit more splashing and changing of foam size, shape as a creature of that size crossed the river.

  86. rickodemilo responds:

    It’s a bear, for sure. Now that I know about the bear thing it’s all I can see.

  87. MountDesertIslander responds:

    It’s a bear with a fish.

    If it were a mammoth, the river would need to be seven feet deep to account for the size of the creature when it is partially submerged in the river center.

    Very cool video of a bear, though.

  88. Loren Coleman responds:

    Sixty-two comments are posted above. I guess you folks like this one.

    I’ll have to tabulate the mammoth vs bear thoughts after we reach 100.

    I just wish we all had more info on the photographer, and could answer some of the good questions asked above.

    Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

  89. oldphilosopher responds:

    Bear.

  90. Biggi Ortiz via Facebook responds:

    This animal doesn’t look at all like a mammoth. A mammoth would have been rather majestic in size and the water does not seem to be deep enough. I don’t see tusks either and anyway their ends should stick out of the water. Sorry no mammoth – although I wished it was one! I go with the bear & fish option.

  91. mungofoot responds:

    how much of Siberia is forested now? seems to me that mammoths needed the long curved tusks for sweeping away snow to get to the grasses they fed on but if they have adapted to more of a forest environment they may have lost those bulky tusks over time…just a thought

  92. Peltboy25 responds:

    It’s not a bear. It’s an easy conclusion to reach, but the body shape and movement are wrong for a bear. I’m not saying it’s a mammoth, I’m saying I don’t know what it is. But in my opinion, you can rule out bears. And I’ve seen a LOT of them.

  93. springheeledjack responds:

    After reading all of the comments and ideas, interesting they were!

    However, this is not an elephant. The head distribution is wrong, the “trunk” is different in color than the rest of the animal and the “trunk” does not look like an extension of the head, but something being carried by the head.

    It’s big and furry, probably a bear.

  94. Aquahead Dan responds:

    I got really excited when I saw the headlines. Ever since I was little I’ve been fascinated with Wolly Mammoths. At first look, the picture really looks like a Wolly Mammoth. However, if you watch the video and see it zoomed in, you can clearly see the snout of a bear with no tusks.

    Furthermore, the “trunk” looks a lot like a fish, especially towards the end of the video with the zoom in. The fish is good sized and you can see it flopping around which gives it the appearance of a trunk.

    Fred Facker via Facebook also raises some very valid points: If this really was a Mammoth, why would the trunk be dangling and in some parts of the video, actually in the water? Most videos I’ve seen of modern day Elephants raise their trunks when swimming or crossing water.

    In conclusion, as sad as I am to say this, I strongly believe that this is simply a large bear crossing a river with a large live fish in it’s mouth. I’d love to be told otherwise however.

  95. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    I tend to agree with opalman on this one, I watched a show about the Siberian Brown bear on the Discovery channel years ago. One point they made is that the Siberian brown is second only in size to the Kodiak brown of Alaska. The reason for this is the Siberian is lousy at catching fish and therefore does not take advantage of the huge source of food like the Kodiak brown. So filming one with a fish in its mouth would be rare in and of itself.

    The critter in the video doesn’t move anything like a bear, none that I have seen anyway. I lived on Kodiak Island for two years back in the late 80’s so I know what they look like. The critter in the film moves too much like an elephant to be a bear in my opinion. I am not saying this is a wooly mammoth but I will say it does look like one. I agree with some of the other posts that this is the best crypto film I have seen in a very long time. I have watched it several times and from the first viewing my mind still shouts holy sh#t that’s a mammoth!! Hopefully there will be some investigation into this video. If it is a fake it is an excellent fake. Siberia is a vast place almost 2 million square miles. That’s plenty of room for some surviving mammoths to be roaming around undetected. Perhaps this is the first one ever filmed. Time will tell. I like to think it is. That would be incredibly cool! But it could be a bear I suppose, that would be more likely, even though it does not look like a bear to me.

  96. Megatherium responds:

    Jokes on us. The Sun is now reporting that it’s two…maybe three ‘squatches in a mammoth suit. Sure enough… if you digitize and enhance frame 4,064 you can clearly see the outline of Junior sitting on pop Alma’s shoulders to fill out the head portion of the outfit….but wait Almas are too short for that to work….hmmmmmm.

  97. Mahalo X responds:

    Well Loren, if you’re going to do some quantitative analysis I had better weigh in. I believe I read somewhere that the Woolly Mammoth is extinct. Of course there is the Coelacanth as the living ‘devil’s advocate’, but this looks ursine to me. I would guess that it is either a bear slipping down the river rocks, or some sort of video trickery.

  98. Mahalo X responds:

    Well now I’m stumped!
    I watched through 40+” high def LED screen and I’ll be darned if there isn’t a visible tusk and flappy ear. My regular screen was to grainy to seperate the different textures, looked more like a Brown Bear, now I really am able to see what looks like an elephant head. That being said; there is a ‘surreal’ element to the movement of the object, often indicative of video tampering.

    I guess you can put up another catagory: Confused! :)

  99. PhotoExpert responds:

    Opalman–Seriously? After my explanation that I broke down so a fourth grader would understand it, you still disagree with the facts I presented? How did you put it? Oh yes, I went on “ad infinitum”. Apparently, I did not go far enough in my explanation for you, because you still don’t get it.

    Seriously, you explain that you know something about photography, as you relate in your post that you have photographed elephants, and you still don’t see the red flags I have clearly pointed out? Really?

    OK, OK, to each his own. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You are entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. LOL

    Since you are at least somewhat knowledgeable in photography, maybe I can appeal to your photographic instincts and turn you around to my point of view or have you agree in part, with my opinion of this video.

    If you were in Africa or Siberia, and you had your camera with you, as a photographer or avid cryptozoologist, why would you not continue filming until you ran out of memory card? Most video cams today can hold gigabytes of information. There is really no excuse to end the video so abruptly. If you are out in the Siberian wilderness, you know you are going to make sure you have plenty of storage space or backup. You would make sure you took extra batteries, etc. There is no excuse for the video ending early, except to deceive or hide or hoax the subject in question. This is not even the photographer in me speaking, this is the human in me speaking. It is human nature to try and view as much as possible of such a huge event taking place in front of you. Pardon the pun.

    I want to get through to you and politely sway you to see the facts I have presented in my last post, even at the risk at going on, ad infinitum, as you say.

    It is clear to me from video analysis, that this is either mediocre CGI, trying to create the illusion of a woolly mammoth or it is a deliberate deception of a bear carrying a fish or discarded trash bag with food material left in it, across a river. It is one or the other but NOT a woolly mammoth! How clear did I make my point? If I did not, just reread slowly what I wrote in my last post. You’ll eventually get it or at least I hope you will eventually get it.

    We also have to look at the credibility of witness accounts and that includes the credibility of the witness or videographer. I am sure when the dust settles on this video, we will find out that the witness or in this case, the videographer is some type of hoaxer. Why? Because the facts I presented in my last post just scream out–HOAX! The red flags I mentioned should clearly point out that my opinion is correct and your opinion is absolutely wrong. I’ll bet you a beer I am right. Make that a coffee since I don’t drink beer! When it is all said and done, you will owe me a coffee if you choose to take me up on my little friendly wager.

    I’ll just let you know in advance, I have never been wrong here at Cryptomundo. Care to take me up on my little wager?

  100. mrdark responds:

    As usual, most or all of the analyses fail on the same point: psychology.

    In this case, you have footage of what you say is a mammoth. Pull back and look at the situation.

    Why don’t we see it leave the river? Why don’t we see it enter the river? Why don’t we get closer? Why are we presented with a single small slice of footage of it in the middle of an act when presenting the beginning or end of the act would provide much stronger evidence? The cameraman simply doesn’t behave as a human would when presented with something so important.

    This is why the Patterson/Gimlin footage remains the best piece of footage of a mystery ever released. It makes sense, 100%. Only then does it become worthwhile to examine in-depth.

    There’s no need to examine what’s in this footage at all, because how the footage is presented rules it out from being anything of any importance.

    You better believe if someone has footage of an animal they believe to be extinct, they’re gonna stay on that thing as long as possible and get as close as possible. The same goes for bigfoot, water monsters, or any other crypto beasts.

  101. fooks responds:

    mrdark;

    and you would do what? run up to it?

    i’d suggest yelling and screaming to make it turn towards you, throw some rocks to get it’s attention?

    and who says all mammoths are born with 16ft tusks?
    (you didn’t)

    anyway, it’s nice to monday morning quarterback, eh?

    if this is real and not CGI, ain’t no bear.

    the trunk thing could be the underside and hairless and lighter skin.

    it does look like a bear carrying a big fish but the head of it and the scale does not compute.

  102. Big Tom Slick responds:

    Now, as to the absurd assumptions that some so-called photography experts have made: No single person, other than the person who shot the video to begin with, can tell us why the video begins at Point A and ends at Point B.

    I can briefly put forth an example, that logically explains why the video plays out the way it does, in an unbiased manner: The person shooting the video took out his cell phone, began recording, and then the batteries died.

    Beyond that, anything else is just a conspiracy theory. And most of the “opinions” about this event are dripping with prejudice and are not very scientific.

  103. PhotoExpert responds:

    Big Tom Slick–Tom, Tom, Tom, where do we begin with you? There is so much that you left out or do not know about, that your reasoning even appears flawed to new Cryptomundians.

    How did you state it? “the absurd assumptions that some so-called photography experts have made”. Hmm, really? I can’t speak for other photographic experts here but I can speak for myself. My professional opinion based on the facts at hand are not an assumption. On the other hand, a nonprofessional making claims based on his opinion are assumptions. That is what you did! Too bad you don’t have the professional credentials to back up your assumptions or your opinion might then be believable and actually hold some merit. As it stands, your opinion is wrong on so many levels because you lack both the facts and credentials. Let me point out to the readers here why your opinion is so flawed.

    In your first post here, you talk about the neck structure of bears. I totally disagree with you. That disagreement is based on other videos posted on YouTube. I know of two that have a bear carrying a salmon in their mouths and it looks exactly like this video. One poster here even claimed that their child said it was a bear. Yet, you fail to see what a young child sees. Sad! If you look at the videos on YouTube, you will find several bear videos carrying fish. Yes, at least two of them look like this! You need to get out more. Of course, if you were a mammalogist and you were talking about the physical structures of bear anatomy, readers here might be more apt to believe you. But since you are not in that profession, your amature opinion counts for nothing!

    In your first post, you talk about the mammoth tusks being seen. Really? Do you even know how big a mammoth tusks are? If you did, you would not be making such ridiculous statements. Since you are unaware of how big mammoth tusks are, try doing a simple Google search. You will find out in short time just how wrong and off your analysis truly is. And if you watch the bear videos on YouTube, you will see that the white linear structure you see is the underside of the salmon’s head near the belly region. Several videos on YouTube show this. If you squint to make the video look like this blurry one, you would probably see tusks, although they would be less than a foot long. The tusks you are seeing are part of the salmon in the bear’s mouth.

    In your second post, you ramble on about the tusks again. I suggest you first do some reading before making such erroneous statements. Obviously, you are not a mammologist are you? Again, do a simple Google search to see how far off you are on the tusk issue.

    In your third post, you speak of the slope of the mammoth’s back. Really, you have seen mammoths walking and know how their back looks in an upright position while traversing a river? Wow! Simply amazing. I say that because if you look at simple bear videos on YouTube, they look identical to this. Not to mention that where this video was supposedly filmed has the highest concentration of brown bears in all of Russia. See Tom, if you go by the facts and not amature conjecture, many things become clear.

    In your last and most recent post, you offer an excuse as to why the video ends abruptly. Well, your right, it could be that is a possibility. However, when you add in all the red flags from experts like myself and other astute readers here at Cryptomundo who are not experts, we all reach the same identical and correct conclusion–THIS IS NOT A MAMMOTH!

    Now Tom, there are so many things about this video that scream fake, it seems as if it is wishful thinking on your part that this is a mammoth video. We get that! It would be cool to think that a mammoth is seen in this video. It would be awesome! But most of us here are truly objective and base our opinions on facts. You have ignored the facts, made up excuses for fakery, and have been nothing but subjective in your wishful thinking and conclusions.

    You are more of a conspiracy theorist than anyone here posting that this is not a mammoth. Next, you will telling us it is a mammoth after it is proven a hoax. You will say the Russian government is trying to cover it up because your flawed logic was proven wrong.

    In your last post, you accuse the readers and posters here of being subjective and their “opinions” dripping with prejudice. I hate to ruin your party, but objective analysis by true experts in their field is not prejudice or subjective. It is fact and that fact is based on acquired knowledge and applying that knowledge in analyzing the facts at hand. All those indicators and red flags point to this video as fake!

    Now unless you are some time of expert with credentials, I would take the opinion of the Cryptomundo readers and posters here over your amature and subjective opinions.

    Another thing Tom, this article has been updated. Mr. Cohen of the Sun who posted this video and I believe now owns the copyright has been involved with other fraudulent videos that were enhanced with CGI. Are you still sticking to your opinion as the facts come about? Afterall, if you are truly objective in your opinion, you will have to take into account the eyewitness testimony and the “facts” surrounding this video. And this video was supplied by Mr. Cohen.

    See Tom, before you try to discredit objective experts, you need to have all the facts. I for one, as others here, are not as you put it-”so called experts”. We are “true experts” because we are able to use our skills and abilities to call this a hoax way before most of the facts come out. While others here who are not experts, subjectively state that this is a mammoth. And that is how one gets egg on their face!

    Sorry Tom, but you are wrong in your subjective assumptions. You need to read a few more books and watch a few more videos. You have to put in the time and gain knowledge before you sling arrows at true experts in the field. Those experts are not me, but the objective members of Cryptomundo such as DWA and Springheeledjack. True, I can be included in that list but I wanted to exclude myself in the last sentence because it is not always the experts who get it correct. It is the intelligent and objective cryptozoologists who make up this great site called Cryptomundo. It is those readers and posters like DWA and Springheeledjack that keep the subjective wishful thinkers in check. If they did not, we would be the laughing stock of skeptics who frequent this site.

    Now you stand corrected! Keep on posting Tom but think before you post. Otherwise, you might put your foot in your mouth over and over again. See you around at Cryptomundo!

  104. grizzlyhunter2 responds:

    I think that the video shows a possible pachyderm of some type. If you look closely when the video zooms in, you can see the shape and shadow of a large ear on the right side of the head. A bear has small, round ears on top of the head, not on the side. You can also just make out the bottom outline of a possible tusk that crosses through just where the lighter “nose” joins the darker head area. The tusks don’t appear large; a juvenile possibly? Elephants that are two, or three years old do not have large tusks either. The tusks grow with age.

    Also, if you watch the front legs move, they bend forward at a knee joint like a pachyderm has. A bear’s front legs move up and bend back with an elbow joint, like our elbow.

    As for the lighter colored “snout”, there was a baby mammoth that was discovered in Siberia several years ago. You can find the article on the Internet. The photos clearly show the snout to be a lighter color than the head area. Possibly another juvenile trait.

    In my opinion, the video shows a pachyderm of some type, whether, or not it’s a mammoth, I don’t know. Anything is possible, and wouldn’t it be remarkable if it was.

  105. TheForthcoming responds:

    The video in question looks like it could be a bear with a fish in it’s mouth crossing the stream or river wherever the video was taken.

    Looking closer at the pictures it appears to be a bear like most people think but there is no way to be 100% sure of it.

    With that being said I think many people here have some good points including PhotoExpert (though I disagree that he is 100%
    right all the time unless Loren or Craig state otherwise)

    Anyway if it’s not a bear then it is either an animal that looks
    like one, an elephant of some kind or a hoax. There is a very
    small chance it could be a Woolly Mammoth but I doubt it.

  106. DWA responds:

    This looks like a pachyderm.

    It doesn’t look like a bear with a fish.

    But another thing it does look like is a possible bear/fish graphically morphed into a pachyderm. Not talking as an expert, here, but this seems to me something that could be done.

    P/G can’t be casually tossed off. But not only did the tech to run a computer fake (nor in the opinion of experts, a costume fake) not exist then, but P/G is backed by tons of evidence – including loads of sightings by people whose prior mindset tended to the extreme skeptical, and whose descriptions of the subject – most from scratch, many if not most from people who never saw P/G – would pull Patty out of the lineup.

    This one? Boy I’d want to see more than one blurry video. Wouldn’t you? Wake me up when the people scouring that site – and I ain’t talking web – show us footprints and, well, BIG piles of poop. Among other things.

    ‘Til then, I can watch me some hockey.

    That there’s no vid where it leaves the water, never mind enters it, isn’t a red flag. But it’s a yellow one for sure. Folks run out of film. But the mathematical laws of chance aren’t telling me to bet that.

  107. LadyPhoenix responds:

    Alright, I see most think this is a bear with a fish. Possible? Sure, but I have a reason to doubt it. If you make the video full screen, and wait for the zoom in, you can actually see what appears to be an elephant-sized ear actually flapping, at least twice. The movement doesn’t really look like a bear to me, but the ear flapping REALLY doesn’t look like a bear. The head doesn’t turn when this happens, either, so it can’t be something caused by head motion. Check the video again, and you should be able to spot this. Short, yes. Grainy, yes (but then, cell videos often are). But that ear motion…..I can’t write this off so quickly.

  108. LadyPhoenix responds:

    Have to add a few things. Bravo to those of you that note the FLAPPING EAR! Opalman, your comments are excellent, as well. This thing does not move like a bear, but like a pachyderm. I haven’t seen a lot of animals in the wild, but I have for decades watched TONS of wildlife programs. That is pachyderm movement. There is nothing on any bear I have ever seen that could mimic a large, flapping ear, either. The back slope is perfect for a mammoth, and small tusks, and the smaller size, would fit a YOUNG one, which is, if you will all recall, what the witness claims he saw. Not a full-grown mammoth, but a young mammoth.

    To the detractors; healthy skepticism is great, honestly. You have raised valid points for consideration, and that is what we should do, to avoid being seen as willing to believe anything, with no proof at all. Now, to address some of those points…

    1. Length of the video – This was NOT taken with a video camera, or even a still camera with video function, but with a cell phone camera. Meaning, very little zoom capability, even on a nicer one, and not the greatest quality. Now, that alone accounts for the quality. Could also account, in more than one way, for the length. Some phones default to a very short video. Mine, an LG Lotus, sets for 30 seconds, unless you change it. Most people don’t routinely take videos with their cell phones, so they probably would not change that. Some phones could have a shorter preset as well. Plus, there is battery life. Siberia means COLD. This means batteries drain faster. So, the phone could have died before he could capture more. We don’t see it entering, maybe, because he saw it already in the river. Sure, this COULD indicate a fake, but it doesn’t automatically mean it IS a fake, just because it’s short.

    2. The water movement – Sorry, but I have watched the video several times JUST to watch the water, and it looks right. The animal isn’t moving very quickly, and the water seems to follow the movement fairly well. Too grainy to be sure either way, really. But, having waded in creeks as a child, it looks believable to me.

    3. The Sun – SO WHAT? Yeah, they can publish stuff that isn’t always above board, but then, they can also pick up what most would call “fringe stories”, and that doesn’t make those fake automatically. Seriously, do we write off Bigfoot, because the Sun and other similar publications have published Bigfoot stories? Didn’t think so.

    4. The trunk – As stated in one of the above posts, a young mammoth was found with a lighter trunk, so that shows this could be real, even though lighter. The witness did, after all, state this was a young one. Plus, as several have already stated, elephants can and do frequently move with the trunk in the water, just like in this video. Then there is tie size ratio, if you assume this is a bear, between the head and the supposed fish. Or the “bear” wading across that much swift-moving water just to eat said fish.

    5. Video quality – as stated, this is a CELL PHONE camera, not some regular video cam, and thus focusing isn’t an option. All the cell phones I have had, you can’t even see, while making the video, if the thing is focused or not.

    So, every argument for a bear can be countered, with reasonable logic. A couple of other points. If you say it could be an elephant, and we are simply being lied to about the location, then please tell me in what areas elephants live that have mostly evergreen trees. Warmer climates tend to have mostly deciduous trees, and with elephants, you see more tropical varieties. Yet the video shows evergreens.

    Plus, I still can’t think of ANYTHING on a bear, with the head pretty still, that can look like a pachyderm ear flapping.

    So, should we look further? Of course! Investigate more? YES< a lot, as soon as possible. What we should not do is write this off as a fraud, without being sure. Oh, does anyone have more data on the DNA analysis of the hair? Can’t seem to locate anything on that.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



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.