DALE DRINNON: A commentary on Darren Naish's blog on the Mansi Champ photo

http://scienceblogs%20.com/tetrapodzoo%20logy/2008/%2006/mansi_%20champ_photo.%20php

[I was supposed to be getting a report from one of the locals and he has so far failed to deliver: it has been more than a week since he emailed me and said he had important news on the matter. I was also in communication with Dick Raynor (mentioned in Naish's blog) but have not heard back from him again either.]

There has been a lot of commentary on the Sandra Mansi photo taken at Lake Champlain and usually taken to be the best evidence for a Long-necked cryptid hiding at the lake. Usually there is little commentary from supporters other than declarations that the image in the photo is a real object. However, there are detractors and Naish's blog discusses the arguments on the side against the idea that the photograph shows an unknown animal.

One of the objections was that a monster could supposedly not be able to hide in only 3-4 feet of water. A Loch Ness Monster supposedly 30 feet long has a thickness of about 3 feet in some of the accounts as stated in Gould's The Monster of Loch Ness and other early sources, so it COULD theoretically happen that a smallish monster could hide in water that shallow. And Benjamin Radford's illustrations 2 and 3 DO present a very good Plesiosaur-shaped appearance.

My conclusion was basically that the object in the photo had a weird 'Neck', especially if it was supposed to be a plesiosaur, and yes, it did seem that the 'Head' part is further away from the viewer than the bulge part of the neck in front - which is definitely convex. That the 'Skin' resembled bark is inconsequential and consistent with other 'Monster' reports otherwise. I am inclined to call the thing in the photo unidentified but a probable piece of driftwood. Its size does seem to be a good deal less than LeBlond indicated in his article in CRYPTOZOOLOGY that I had cited recently. My main input was actually that the object is in a mechanically improbable flexture and seems to have held the pose for all the time that it was viewed, and that judging from other Lake Monster reports, the proportions are off. I would therefore tentatively agree with the driftwood explanation, NOT because I don't think Champ could be a Plesiosaur-shaped animal (hence the mock-up on an earlier blog) but because of the mechanical problems of the neck flexed in that posture (And holding that uncomfortable position stock-still)

I have attempted to make a flat diagram of the way the neck is turning - difficult to do because the curve is a complex spiral in two planes. But I think the drawing shows it is a very kinky piece of work. It looks more like an octopus tentacle than the neck of a Plesiosaur or even any bird. Now one of the things I have discovered in my own research is that the neck usually reported in Long-necks is actually consistent with some reconstructions of a Plesiosaur's neck: thick and not very flexible on the end nearest the body; and thin and much more flexible near the head end. That is why the neck is held in such typical postures as the "Spar sticking straight out at the front at an inclined angle" and then again the "Periscope" or front-end-of-a-stretched-s-shape (for the whole neck). The shape of the thing in the Mansi photograph is pretty much boneless; the shape of Champ's neck as specified by witnesses (as demonstrated in the Sinclair-dinosaur mock-up) is much more reasonable for a long-necked swimming animal.

This ties into a series of problems in physics of how the neck works. Incidentally, the physics of Heuvelmans's Long-neck resconstruction are all wrong when he has a very fast swimmer with a very flexible neck: you can't have both of those things at the same time. The animal would break its neck from the water pressure if it was swimming at great speeds and speeds in excess of 35 mph are often stated; even 75 to 100 mph for some of Heuvelmans's cases.

It is better not to dwell on suspicious photos or other evidence; actually, we have reached the point where NO photographic evidence is good enough: ANYTHING could be faked. That is going to be hard on us researchers, but it is what we have to work with. My own opinion is that SOME of the photos are indeed genuine, and they show essentially the same sort of Long-Necked creature world-wide. But unfortunately that the point is not PROVEABLE.

The Mansi photo is in Naish's blog so I did not think I needed to reproduce it and I would emphasise that the photographer appears to be a truthful and sincere individual.

The reference to LeBlond's article again is:

LeBlond, Paul H. "An Estimate of the Dimensions of the Lake Champlain Monster from the Length of the Adjacent Waves in the Mansi Photograph", CRYPTOZOOLOGY, vol.1, Winter 1982.

RICHARD FREEMAN: THE LOST SKELETON OF LAKE CHAMPLAIN

In a previous post I discussed a scale and bones found in a lake associated with monster sightings in Wisconcin. But there are other monster-haunted lakes where strange bones have been found.

In 1881 a vast, elongate skeleton was unearthed by Mr H. H. Burge near Lake Champlain on the US/Canadian borders of Vermont, New York State and Quebec.

The actual monster, later known as ‘Champ’, was first reported by a white settler two years later in 1883. Sheriff Nathan H. Mooney claimed that he had seen a “…gigantic water serpent about 50 yards away". Local Indian tribes were familiar with something odd in the lake. The Abenaki had always known of it and called the creature 'Tatoskok.' The Iroquois called the beast 'Petoubouque.' There have been 300 recorded sightings of the creature to date, not counting ancient Indian accounts.

The Middlebury Register of May 27th 1881 wrote…

'The proprietors of the Champlain Granite Works, located near Barn Rock on Lake Champlain claim to have uncovered a petrified sea serpent of mammoth proportions, being about 8 inches in diameter and nearly fifty feet long. The surface of the stone bears evidence of the outer skin of a large serpent while the inner surface shows the entrails. The proprietors are intending soon to begin excavations along the place where it lies embedded in the dirt and granite, to ascertain its size.'

More details were printed the following year in the June 8th edition of Elizabeth Town Post & Gazette.

'The report of finding a monster in the limestone deposit of the “North Shore” I heard many times and considered it a story originating with someone anxious to be the author of a sensation.
Last summer, a party, part of whom were scientific gentlemen by education and profession called at the cottage and almost demanded admission to the apartments of the monster. The Superintendent was busy at the time superintending his many labourers engaged in the quarry, and told the gentlemen he could not leave his business and go down to the house, and furthermore, he was not prepared to exhibit what he had found, as there was so little of it, but at sometime in the future he would be glad to show to all his serpent. I had heard the above from one of the party, and made my mind up to say nothing of the serpent when I went there. Just about to bid the good folks good-day, the Superintendent said: "I am not in show buisness, as many have thought, neither am I showing snakes, but I have something to show you.”

'On the carpet in an upper room lay six or seven feet in length, pieces of an enormous petrified snake. Some portions were six inches long and some fifteen or more. The pieces were placed together and fitted so nicely that was no room for doubt of their having been broken apart. The largest end was eight or nine inches in diameter, and only three or four feet from the terminal of the entrails, and two or three feet beyond. The entrails were petrified, but much darker and quite open or pourous and containing many bright and glistening crystals. The vertebra was visible at each broken end, and the flesh part showed traces of what had at one time been veins.

'The skin was readily distinguished from the flesh as would have been had the monster been cut in two whilst living. After an examination of each piece, and comparing the gradual enlargement of the cavity, thickness of flesh and skin on the belly, and the gradual thickening towards the back, left no room in my mind to entertain the thought that it was an accident or freak of nature with molten rock. During this hour of examination at the south side of the window with bright sunlight, the Superintendent had sat quietly and had said nothing but answer a very few questions. I said I did not want to be inquisitive, but would like to know in what kind of rock he was found and his general position. He said he was not in the rock but was merely attached to the limestone, and his position was as if he had placed himself for rest or sleep, and he had traced his body by actual measurement over sixty feet, and his weight to several tons when all removed. The portions the Superintendent has removed he has secured alone, but will be obliged to have help in getting the remainder or leave the monster to rest in his slumber of death. When the proper time comes the scientific men of different localities will be called upon to make an examination and publish to the world their verdict.”'

The remains are next mentioned in The Burlington Free Press of November 4th 1886 and apparently were on show at a bank-sponsored exhibition held in Vergennes, Vermont. It is recorded on page 39 of the exhibition’s catalogue. It was subsequently purchased by the famous showman P. T. Barnum (1810-1891) for his museum. From then on the specimen seems to have vanished. Searches of Barnum’s records have so far been fruitless. Barnum's collections were twice ravaged by fire but both of these incidents were before he bought the remains.

What was the skeleton; some kind of fossil? The strata around Lake Champlain is too young for dinosaurs or their contemporary marine reptiles. Archaeocetes are also much too old for the strata. The only fossil whales that have been uncovered in the area are modern species such as the beluga (Delphinapterus leucas).

The presence of skin and soft organs is unusual. These are only preserved under exceptional circumstances. This raises the possibility that it was a sub-fossil or in other words fairly recent in origin.

Now, if only we could find it!

DALE DRINNON: Champ sightings Mock-up

I was going through Lake Champlain sightings recently and I decided to do this little demonstration of what the common physical characteristics and size ascribed to Champ are actually supposed to be. This subtracts obvious sightings of fish and swimming moose, and the occasional stray seal.

I make no remarks about what this means at this point; this mock-up is merely to demonstrate what one series of witnesses are describing with a fair degree of consistency. Sightings like this have been recorded for the whole length of the 20th century.

DALE DRINNON: Perhaps the earliest Lake Champlain sighting...

It took a little searching through the archives to turn this up. It was incidentally the first report of any type I had heard about as coming from Lake Champlain.

In July 1937 some fishermen including Gene McGabe, Coots Gordon and Pat Harvey, reported a Champ near Whitehall New York. They saw it while fishing from a pier. They reported it as having a noticeable red mane, very large eyes and large drooping ears-and moose antlers. They estimated it as 50 feet long, and undoubtedly that includes at least part of the wake in the estimate.

The source is from a Syracuse NY newspaper dated July 22, 1937: The Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library had it as part of a compilation article at second hand, in their clippings file under "Sea serpents" at the Central branch as of the 1970s. That was far back enough that other items in the same file included announcements from the Loch Ness Phenomenon Investigations Bureau. And my reaction upon first seeing it was "You have GOT to be kidding!"

RICHARD FREEMAN: CHAMP IN THE PICTURE AGAIN

Guest Blogger time for Richard Freeman again. It almost seems silly introducing Richard to you all once again when he makes an appearance as guest blogger several times a week. However our viewing audience/readers (whatever you like to call yourselves) is growing so fast that it is certain that some of you missed the last time I introduced him.

What may be the most significant evidence for ‘Champ’, the monster of Lake Champlain since the Sandra Mansi photo of 1977 has surfaced. A two-minute film taken via mobile phone shows a dark creature with a moderately long neck swimming across the lake. The creature seems to pause a couple of times. Much of its back is showing, the only the thing close to it in the water to is what looks like a buoy. If we could measure this then we might get a handle on the size of the creature. . The film was taken near Oakledge Park in Burlington last weekend.

Witness Eric Olsen, does not know if the animal he filmed is the legendary Champ and calls the film, now on Youtube, simply ‘Strange Sighting on Lake Champlain’.

Olsen said… “You can see that it is moving both horizontally, across the water, and vertically, going under the surface and coming back up,” he said. “It struck me as something that was long, that it didn’t have much girth.”

Does the footage actually show the creature known as ‘Champ’? Well firstly we don’t know what Champ is, if it or rather they exist. It looks quite different to the image in the Mansi photograph, lacking the long, serpentine neck. It does not appear to show the humps often associated with Champ sightings either. It does bear some resemblance to a few eyewitness sketches from Loch Ness however.

I have compared the footage to know animals swimming. It is not a seal, the neck is too thin and the head held too high. It doesn’t look like a bear either. Bears seldom show as much of their backs as this creature seems to whilst swimming. Once more the neck seems too slender for a bear.

Another possibility is a swimming moose or some other species of deer. An adult male would have noticeable horns but it could be a youngster or female. The neck looks much more like that of a moose or deer and these animals show more of their back when swimming. The stumbling point on this theory is that there are no visible, external ears on the animal in the footage.

Apparently the creature did not leave the water as would be expected if it were a moose or deer. As always we are left with interesting but inconclusive footage.