Then I’ll explain it again:

I asked whether the “log being pushed up by gases” phenomenon happens often in relatively shallow water where the pressure is lower, like where the Mansi photo was taken. You basically said “we can’t be sure of the depth”.

But then in your appearance in a show on Champ, I think it was “America’s Loch Ness Monster”, you said you were at the point closest to where you could determine the photo was taken and you were wading in relatively shallow water.

So the contradiction is this:

(1) In the context of a discussion of whether the “gas driven log” phenomenon can occur in shallow water where the pressure is lower you state that “we can’t determine the depth”.

(2) In the context of a televised overview of your photo analysis where you allege you are as close to where the object was in the picture as possible you wind up wading in relatively shallow water.

So whether “we can’t determine the depth” or “the depth is relatively shallow” seems to change depending on which point you are arguing. This is why I mentioned your assumptions changing in my above post.

Chris thanks for directing us over here……Buzz

After reading that article, be sure to follow its link to the video.

Again, granted, this critter doesn’t lift its head so much as push against the ground in order to lift its body, but we’re getting very close.

Benjamin (37) explained that “usually” ’site’ was more specific than an entire lake – a case which may be more “usual” to Benjamin than shovethenos.

Let’s stop the banter about advertising and explaining years of research in a comments column. Personally, I’m happy to hear Benjamin’s insights as presented because I’m totally new to this cryptid and they come across as a good summary introduction.

Equally, I like to hear shovethenos’ retorts because they’re keeping up a healthy debate and getting the rest of us readers to open our minds to alternate possibilties.

End of my rant. Hopping off soapbox

Benjamin – thanks for clarifying that other eyewitnesses support Mansi. And (24) your point is valid – the photo alone could be of nearly anything.

shovethenos – you provide interesting feedback on the Norfanz site. You could put the question to them about the tooth.

Chris.

The depth of the water and the location of the photo have nothing to do with estimating the size of the creature, as you would know had you read my research and experiments on the topic.

I’m genuinely happy to discuss this topic and respond to informed criticism, but I don’t have time to explain several years of research and many articles to people who haven’t taken the time to be fully informed about the topic.

“It seems like you want your assumptions to be accepted when they support your observations, but then want to ignore your own assumptions when it appears they may harm other parts of your theory or theories.”

I have no idea what this means, and I have to sign off on the topic for now, as I’m off to Loch Ness this weekend.

Come on, you’re intentionally being obtuse here. We’re talking about what’s alleged to be at least a moderately sized carnivorous animal that hunts fish and whatever else throughout the lake. I don’t think anyone thinks that the definition of “site” in this case should be limited to a swimming pool sized area around where the Mansi photo was taken.

Then how can you possibly come to an even ballpark estimate of the size of the object in the picture?

It seems like you want your assumptions to be accepted when they support your observations, but then want to ignore your own assumptions when it appears they may harm other parts of your theory or theories.

In “America’s Loch Ness Moster” I think it was, you claimed to identify as closely as possible where the photo was taken. From that show it was implied that you thought it was pretty close to the actual location. Do you think the show created a false impression?

Oh, I see. My mistake.

I should have understood that when you wrote “site” you meant “the entire lake.” Usually “site” suggests a specific, localized area.

In order for your suggestion to be valid, you’d have to get a representative sample of lakes that do NOT supposedly have mysterious creatures to see if similar echolocation appears in those lakes as well. You need a baseline for comparison, not just a few anomalous, ambiguous readings. Correlation does not imply causation.

I hope you’re right, but so far the sonar that was gathered at Champlain is just as ambiguous as other sonar evidence for other lake monsters.

“If the recordings were unquestionably produced by an animal, we can unquestionably state that an animal that produced echolocation resided in Lake Champlain at that time.”

I don’t know of any scientific test that could “unquestionably” prove that a given sound is from an organic source. Perhaps the studies, once published, will show that!