Comments on: Another Photo of Raystown Ray

By: Allegheny Zak

Allegheny Zak — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:05:07 +0000

I recently chanced upon the Raystown Ray website.

I didn’t think too much of the ‘evidence’, but I forwarded it to a friend with whom I’ve visited this reservoir in the past – just for amusement purposes.

Much to my surprise, she had been there recently with some other friends and said that one of the party claimed to have briefly sighted ‘something that looked like the Loch Ness monster’. These people are not interested in fringe subjects and had certainly not heard the legend of Raystown Ray beforehand. To my mind this suggests that there may really be something there.

By: shumway10973

shumway10973 — Fri, 07 Jul 2006 01:46:44 +0000

I’ld rather look at fakes (which I’m sure this is) than just dismiss anything that might possibly be real just because the person doesn’t know how to use their camera. hey, if this person(s) put this into photoshop and actually tried to make this look “real” at least someone is taking pride in what they are doing. The waves won’t be bigger than the monster.

By: coolbug

coolbug — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:59:50 +0000

I don’t now it could be a bear or somthing

By: Mnynames

Mnynames — Sat, 27 May 2006 12:17:26 +0000

Sorry Jeremy, James, et al., but I suddenly have an image of a Dalek spinning around shouting, “INVALIDATE! INVALIDATE!”

By: Jeremy_Wells

Jeremy_Wells — Fri, 26 May 2006 20:29:18 +0000

on the “validate/invalidate” question that jjames is discussing. I must weigh in on the side of those who have no problems with discussing what are most probably straight up fakes (not a misidentification, not a victim of a hoax, but a hoaxer themselves).
With all due respect jjames, to discuss a concept is not necessarily to validate it. My key area of interest is UFOlogy, and over my years of study I’ve come to conclude that, while real to the individuals reporting it, the phenomenon is likely psychological in nature rather than physical. So while I don’t believe that George Adamski really took a ride with Venusians, his story is valuable in understanding the evolution of the phenomenon.
In that vein, the fact that a small Pennsylvania community can “tap into” that sense of wonder people feel for cryptids (much in the same way the people of Roswell NM have with saucer buffs) is worthy of discussion, if nothing else.
I do agree (one curmudgeon to another) that to debate the legitimacy of these photos is asinine.
But discussing the fact that some people will blindly believe these could be real, despite the fact that it is a relatively new, man-made lake is worth some time. No?
(I mean, to play devil’s advocate, we could begin discussing the tradition of river monsters, etc. and how those traditions could allow for blah blah blah… but I think you get my point. Even if we don’t agree these are real photos or that the “sightings” are the cream of the crop, there is always some wheat still sticking to the chaff that could be winnowed away, even if it is just a glimpse into the minds of those who will blindly believe in anything.)

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Fri, 26 May 2006 05:44:24 +0000

There’s supposedly over 20 pictures in the series. I wait with baited breath-get it?- “Baited”?

By: Tabitca

Tabitca — Wed, 24 May 2006 11:39:28 +0000

Now I know I haven’t got my specs on but the first photo on this page(which is the second in chronological order I belive Craig?),the monster looks like it’s sinking. Did it spring a leak I find myself asking?

By: sasquatch

sasquatch — Wed, 24 May 2006 05:25:40 +0000

The rare longneckus elusivia sturgeon. Yeah…

By: Forever_Elusive

Forever_Elusive — Wed, 24 May 2006 03:06:54 +0000

come on guys, it is obviously a large sturgeon. didn’t you know, that’s what everything is.

By: Craig Woolheater

Craig Woolheater — Wed, 24 May 2006 02:47:04 +0000

I added the first photo to this post to facilitate comparison.