“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:

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. 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. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

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

  1. fooks responds:


    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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.