Champ Crunch
Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 1st, 2009
One month ago, the Eric Olsen-Lake Champlain phonecam footage of “something” was revealed through YouTube, and first discussed here at Cryptomundo, before it was even mentioned in a couple Vermont & New York newspapers.
Unfortunately, we are no closer today than then to knowing what is shown in the moving images. Clearly, I think, we know what it is not. The traits, shape, and behavior of the “something” does not appear, despite critics of the footage, to match a young moose, a dog, a deer, or even an elk (which are not even found in that location). Nor is it a diver underwater holding up a boot, heard from one clown.
I journeyed over to Lake Champlain last week. Part of my time was spent being recorded by Comcast out of Philadelphia. They interviewed me for forthcoming programs in their series “American Monsters,” to be shown on their “Comcast-On-Demand” cable selection option. I discussed the Lake Champlain Monsters. Following that, I shared info on cryptozoology in general and Bigfoot.
I also explored Oakledge Park on my own and with an associate separately, doing some on-site investigations.
I interviewed park rangers, divers, and other locals about Champ, about Eric Oslen (shown above), and about his footage. Digital photos were taken.
The wind was high, the water was choppy (conditions were unsafe for boating out to the buoys), and conditions were much different than the calm during the day of Olsen’s “filming,” which are reflected in the earlier image above. It was actually not safe around the lake during this week. For me, as it developed, I wasn’t even safe on land, making my assessments of the “filmsite.”
Unfortunately, my time was cut short when I fell on the very ledge where Olsen stood, severely twisting, bruising, and causing small fractures in my right foot. In the language of the street, I broke my darned foot. I remain in pain a week later, and my three middle toes and various spots above & below on my foot now have turned a nice shade of purple, perhaps matching a dinosaur replica or two. (I know, TMI.)
A right broken foot. Not mine, but comparative to how mine looked in the first 48 hours after my crunching encounter in pursuit of Champ; image for illustrative purposes only.
What I did discover were some important variables.
The small city park is on the edge and in Burlington proper, very directly. Just beyond the borders of the park you find yourself right in a densely inhabited residential area. No moose, deer, or even otters are known for that area of the city or in the park.
Any animals which come out onto shore in that area would be regularly seen by the visitors to Oakledge Park - or the nearby residents. Nothing unusual, such as an elk teleported from Montana, have been viewed there, or even moose, baby or otherwise, recently.
Secondly, and significantly, the distance to the buoy and the actual area encompassing this event are much smaller than at first assumed by the footage. Foreshortening appears to be occurring, and what seems to be far away in the footage is closer than it appears.
For reference, recall that the tennis court in this photo is 36 ft x 78 ft. The arrow for the “creature” should be closer to shore.
The following new re-examination of the footage by Al gives a more realistic take on these distances. This YouTube video has not been posted at Cryptomundo before and these new dimensions agree with my fix on the new Olsen footage distances.
I was also able to meet up with “Deep Throat,” who had supplied me with early info on the footage. This individual is Mark Gould, who works in the local media there. Although I had just injured my foot, perhaps in shock, I continued exploring the park after Mark’s arrival.
There has been some confusion about the actual location of the Olsen footage. Along with the rangers, Gould and I were definitely able to determine and confirm that the Olsen ledge is the one at the far end of the park, away from the entrance.
Mark and I took reverse angle photographs from the sight-line from the other side of where the “something” would have been.
Below, the look on my face, no doubt, is from the pain in my foot!
This is of Mark Gould.
The following stabilized version of the Eric Olsen-obtained video was produced by John Donald Carlucci of Darke Media.
I need to go back to Lake Champlain, again, after my foot heals.
Curses!
For now, the mystery remains, but the answer may be a mundane one.
I’m still not saying I know what was digitally captured by Eric Olsen’s phonecam, but it is not as large as it looks. That it may be an otter remains a real possibility, all joking aside.
Bernard Heuvelmans’ Super-Otter (above) compared to an image from Eric Olsen’s new footage (below).
Your assistance is still important in supporting the museum. Please…
Thank You.
Thanks for enhancements and photos from Edward Shephard, Yakcam, Impossible Visits, Sean Viloria, John Donald Carlucci, BoyInTheMachine, Jason Ficks, Sam Hemingway, Mark Gould, during this process, and, of course, Eric Olsen.
- Similar Phenomena:
Cool, great insights Loren. Sorry to read about your broken foot.
The on-site investigation turned out to be extremely valuable since you can confirm the exact location where the footage was shot and get the impression that the “creature” may potentially be much smaller than initially assumed. That evidence does narrow the options down quite a bit for what this may actually be. And since there have been no addititional sightings (that I have heard of) the otter theory sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The Olsen video ABSOLUTELY resembles the movement of a deer, moose, or other similar, known animal swimming in water. Go to video.google.com and do a search for “moose swimming” (skipping links to videos of dogs named “Moose”) or “deer swimming” and you will find they very much resemble the animal seen in the Olsen video.
Do they look EXACTLY like the Olsen creature? Of course not. Keep in mind, though, that digital imaging devices CANNOT capture the exact image of something. There are limits to resolution, and those limits are resolved by the device making approximations. Lower resolution devices will have to make more approximations, and the further the subject is the more “guestimating” the device has to do.
I’m not discounting that the Olsen creature might be a cryptid, but I just can’t see how so many people fail to see any similarity to other, known animals.
chabuhi:
First: The questions about moose-deer ids for this footage have been dealt with in-depth here, including the lack of ears, the lack of evidence of moose-deer (which do come on land) in this area, and the fact many of us here are very familiar with moose-deer in water in New England and on video/film.
Second, re: “I just can’t see how so many people fail to see any similarity to other, known animals.”
Please read my entire posting above, all the way to the end, for it very much ends with a possible similarity to a known animal.
The other angle of the area definitly shows how small the area is where the video was taken. that makes me think he the “creature” is smaller than i first thought.
did taking a dip ever cross your mind you know, for prespective lol….
Bummer about the foot Loren, hope ya get better soon. but now you have become bigfoot! the search is over.
lol better not leave any tracks, you might have a whole new investigation on your hands….or foot. j/K thanks.
So sorry to hear about your foot. All for the “art,” I guess…:) Otter? Still think not but who knows…
All kidding aside, I’m glad you were at least able to get some info on the place where the footage was shot and its distance from the creature.
Hmmm… The problem I have with the otter theory is one more of behavior than of morphology - the otters in the videos where the subject is known to be an otter act like they have ADHD, never swimming in quite as straight a line as the creature in the Olsen Video. They turn every few seconds, as though they get bored with following any one course. The creature in the video in question, on the other hand, seems to have a specific goal in mind with its swimming, though I’m not sure what.
Very sorry to hear about your accident, Loren. Hopefully there won’t be any need to add a parakeet to the Museum’s collection
So now the new measures modify the original size assumption. This is how the game is supposed to be played.
Now, assuming that whatever animal it is that’s been recorded —either known or unknown— I would still like to know if there’s something in that area that might be a source of attraction to it. Otherwise, why would it choose to be so close to an area that’s been so heavily modified by man? Just how old is this residential area anyway?
I also hope you get to return soon to the lake, and maybe even have a personal interview with Olsen.
Yes, red pill, probably smaller but still unknown, although it may merely be unidentifiable.
At 5:30 am in the morning, it is quiet, rustic, and well, still a cove in a larger body of water in Vermont. The city and residential area may seem like a world away to a mainly aquatic form of life, whether known or unknown.
Eric Oslen has routinely refused interviews of all media except for one with the newsman who knew him personally because that newspaper reporter use to be Olsen’s landlord. Olsen, at least, returned an email to the Comcast producer declining their interview request. He has not even responded to my attempts at contact. I tried several avenues of contact before trekking over there, although who knows if my messages reached him?
Sorry about your foot Loren.
But …
I still think the critter’s a deer
I still believe it to be a piece of driftwood, with the root end being the “head”, pulled along by means of a monofilament fishing line by a partner in the bushes on the shoreline, out of the camera frame, when few other people were up yet. You can get the bobbing effect by reeling it in in spurts, go, then relax. I have been a fisherman all my life in lakes, rivers and creeks, and you get can this effect when you snag your hook on a piece of driftwood.
Has anyone tried to re-create the scene using a piece of driftwood? Presumably if it was a hoax, as I believe it to be, the driftwood would have been moved far enough away people wouldn’t find it, but you never know.
Well, Lance, someone could carve a piece of wood so that the portion that ends up resting above the water resembles the creature seen here, and then try that experiment. In fact, I encourage it so we can know whether or not that is the case.
Good to see some on-site background work on one of the best pieces of footage from Champlain. (In my opinion I think the ABC News video - and especially the still frames derived from it - is better because it rules out more non-cryptid explanations.)
Some observations:
- While I don’t think an otter can be conclusively ruled out I think there are some points that make an otter unlikely:
* In several places where a clean profile view is provided it looks like the neck is too thin in proportion to the head to be an otter.
* In a couple places where the head is tilted downward the head appears to be too angular and triangle-shaped to be an otter. It looks a lot like the triangle shaped head especially apparent in the bottom still picture from the ABC News video at this Cryptomundo entry.
- In my opinion the Olsen video shows only part of the head and neck and glimpses of a tail section in a couple places. So even with the revised size estimates I think the animal in the video is fairly large, with only part of it being visible in the footage.
For the deer folks:
Even this little fella has huge, apparent ears when viewed in profile.
In my opinion if it were a deer, moose, etc. there would be ears visible in at least a couple places in the footage.
Thanks for the update on the size possibilities.
That at least gives us a rule of thumb to use when ruling out known and unknowns.
I also got a chuckle from the “Night STalker” background music from the youtube video.
It’s animate and it’s no deer or moose. It may be something mundane that hasn’t been thought of yet, but it is something to keep trying to get more info on…Olsen, man, time to talk to someone else and give us some more clues…
It’s clearly a piece of driftwood, tied by a monofilament thread to an otter, which is fleeing a wounded, juvenile moose that is swimming to get a away from a sasquatch that telepathically sensed the cameras presence and popped into the 5th dimension on his way to the Carter Farm with some marshmallows. At first I thought a plesiosaur might be involved, but that idea didn’t hold up against Occam’s Razor.
Fhqwhgads - Dripping from your post, the sarcasm is.
‘Course, if I were the otter, I’d be poking the moose with a stick.
Also, Shovethenos, the link you provided gave me a big 4-0-4, Page Not Found.
Sorry to hear about your foot, Loren!!
I just realized that I actually have a video tape somewhere of an otter swimming in a pool, as well as a lot of otter surveillance, at least in captivity. I’m very fond of otters and we used to stop at every place that had captive ones when travelling.
I tend to agree with CryptoInformant’s description–they never ever hold their heads that still. They duck in and out of the water–they like to keep wet–and they tend to swivel their heads around a lot. This creature, if it really is a creature, holds its head way too stiffly to be even an arthritic otter, and it behaves as if it hates being in the water and is desperate to get to the shore. That would sound more of a land animal dumped into water than Champ or an otter or a seal.
And it doesn’t look like a deer either. I am leaning towards the fake/driftwood theory.
No guys its obviously an elephant’s truck, the circus forgot Dumbo! Bad joke. I highly doubt it was a piece of driftwood being pulled along by a fishing rod however. One, a piece of driftwood that is at all buoyant isn’t going to sink below the surface for several seconds at a time. And two, from 1:31 and on, the lower portions of the “creature” begin rising to the surface occasionally, indicating it has flexibility.
I’m sorry to hear about your foot Mr. Coleman, don’t forget to ice! Thanks so much for all the information!
I’m sorry Loren, but, I don’t see the same back drop as the original video.
I am receiving a montage of photos, maybe you could point these three derricks to me, I’m apparently not getting it.
Which photo are you making reference to that is the same shot, location.
Sorry for being a little thick!
thanks
Sorry, Chris, I am reminded of that famous passage from Cool Hand Luke (1967).
Captain, Road Prison 36: What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.
One last try here. Please look at the “montage” of images from the footage, above the words “I was also able to meet up with ‘Deep Throat,’” then look at the derricks to the left and the dark spit of land out into the lake at the right end of the photograph.
Okay, compare that to the photographs of that spit of land that are posted above and below the photo of Eric Olsen with sunglasses on. Those photos were taken from the ledge on which Olsen stood, the one I fell on, and the spot that gives an exact panorama of the view shown on the phonecam.
What I’m saying is that the phonecam’s technotricks the eye into thinking the distances look much different than what you see with your naked eye or even in regular photos.
If you still don’t understand that I actually do know where the “filming” spot is, I suggest we might need to meet up at Oakledge Park to resolve this for you Chris.
Folks, especially all those who have been to Oakledge, am I saying something wrong?
Yes, driftwood can act just like that. I have seen it many times act this way in my almost 50 years here on earth. Waterlogged driftwood acts different than dried out driftwood. This is waterlogged driftwood.
And before someone calls me a scoftic, we Native Americans have special “Native American senses” that help us differentiate between a stick and a moose. We never were interested in eating sticks
I’ve seen many a river otter cavorting in the lake I live on, and I’d agree with those here who say this animal in the footage just doesn’t appear to behave like an otter. What it DOES behave like is a non-aquatic animal like a deer or moose trying to cross a body of water. But neither does it *resemble* either of these–and it’s my understanding that moose aren’t all THAT common in the area around Lake Champlain, so presumably it would have been noticed.
The only troubling aspect of this video is that it appears to be pretty clear that the animal is trying to make it to shore; it seems to be making a beeline for it, in fact. Yet the witness failed to continue following the animal’s progress as it neared land, where it would have presumably revealed itself. This suggests that he knew what he was taping was no cryptid, but that if he just stopped before it reached its destination, he’d leave some doubt as to the animal’s true nature.
On the other hand, it’s one of those odd instances where it behaves like one kind of animal, but doesn’t LOOK all that much like said animal (an ungulate of some kind) whereas it DOES resemble an otter but doesn’t at all ACT like an otter.
Nature loves playing tricks, it seems.
Sorry to hear about your accident, Loren. But such are the dangers for those intrepid travelers of the Fortean variety, eh? I hope you are healing quickly. And thanks for (literally) sticking your neck out to learn more about this very interesting incident.
Curt
I’m down with Fhqwhgads. That’s a totally reasonable explanation. Just set your mind. No, SET IT. Nope…still open….hold still here…
I too have never seen an otter act that, well, stately. I get the same take from known-otter video I’ve seen. The only wild river otter I ever saw, from the boardwalk in Florida’s Corkscrew Swamp Preserve, was coming right at me in a straight line - punctuated by about four full-body rolls in two body lengths of swimming. Otters in water are ACTIVE. Besides the head and neck seem wrong.
Despite what a couple have said here, I don’t see any known animal in that clip; and that seems really distorted for a known animal, even captured by a cell camera, particularly given other features in the clip. Can’t say what it is; but I can’t see a slam-dunk verdict for a known animal either.
Ouch! Be careful out there Loren or OSHA may get involved citing a need to regulate Cryptozoology.
Loren the idea is to be “on the track”, not traction! Chances are with the racket you made with your tummble you frightened poor Champ off. What happens when search for bigfoot, do you pull a George of the Jungle and crash into trees?
There are goats that have no ears, or tiny nubs. What if this were a deer (or a goat) with either an ear-less mutation or a lack of ears due to predation?
To be honest, I still for the life of me cannot understand how one can see the “thing” in the footage as a piece of “driftwood.”
Maybe I’m unable to fully comprehend the ways in which my brain processes information and visual stimuli—maybe it’s just that certain optical “illusions” are beyond my capacity to appreciate— but I DON’T understand how the “message” from my retina to my cerebral cortex translates what I see on the video as “inanimate object being carried along by the current/stream.”
Like I said, maybe my mind can be taken in by “optical illusions” (Ok) and I just have not a “trained eye” for the phenomena in nature—maybe I need to spend more time outside on God’s Green Earth (Probably)—almost certainly I’m not as experienced as some of the good people hereas to Fauna, Flora and Related Phenomena—but on first watching this video (and subsequent viewings) I did NOT immediately get the impression “driftwood.”
I’ve seen wood float down rivers and it move nothing like that. One gets the impression from the beginning that it is inanimate. I don’t see that here. This moves and then stops—moves and then stops. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe I’m just too “naive.” Too “willing to believe.” Too unfamiliar with the way driftwood operates-who knows???
I’m not trying to be flip or sarcastic here, by the way. I just don’t get it. Is there anybody here besides LanceFoster who thinks this might be driftwood?
And I’m not trying to “pick” on you, Lance, BTW—I just honestly need to know—what have I been “missing”?.
I don’t think you’re a “scoftic,” either. Just trying to understand.
Question: Do we know how fast the current was going on that day? That bit of knowledge would go a long way to determining the stationary/mobile mode of the “thing.”
Believe it or not, Otter actually seems more of a “plausible” explanation—although I must say:
1) Despite the apparent closer distance between the shore and the object, it STILL seems too elongated and too big to be an Otter.
The head is still too weird and too “horsedheaded” to me to be that of an otter.
2) Shelley and Rbhess made some good points as well. the behavior of whatever-this-is does not say Otter. Does not behave like an Otter.
And no matter how “wet” or “underwater” an animal is, one still sees the ears. Shovethenos is right. I don’t really see “deer.”
DWA is right. Definitely an unknown animal. Too ambiguous a footage to determine anything conclusive—so maybe it’s better if it is assigned to the “what could it be” file and leave it at that.
My two cents.
Okay, I can say for sure that waterlogged driftwood does not float. I’m not saying I believe the animal to actually be Champ, it could be a camel for all anyone knows.:)
CryptoInformant 2.0-
That’s odd, because it references an entry here on Cryptomundo.
Here’s the link again.
If that doesn’t work type “abc news video” in the Cryptomundo search window and when the search results come up it is the entry titled “Champ Video” from March 28, 2008.
100% waterlogged driftwood does not float, it remains submerged.
0% waterlogged driftwood floats like a feather upon the waters.
There is of course a range between the extremes, and the same log does not even have to be waterlogged evenly. Those who as kids wandered along a shore and cast off driftwood as pretend ships will know what I mean
There is a range between…in which partially waterlogged driftwood lies partially underwater, and partially on the surface.
This waterloggedness is not necessarily evenly distributed, but can be more in one place than another, such as wood that has been washed up on a shore, so that the portion that remains in the water, or exposed to the action of water, remains predominately waterlogged. The portion which is washed away, or extends up away from the water, dries out. So one portion of a log can be 50%-95% (est.) waterlogged, while other portions can be quite dry. If one end or irregular portion of the log is relatively dry and buoyant, the more waterlogged portion will remain below the surface for the most part, only occasionally coming above the water through current or wave action, etc.
Such an unevenly waterlogged piece will float and turn in currents, naturally (I have seen many of them do so when I pushed them into river currents), and would also do so when pulled by a rope or monofilament line.
But hey, people are gonna believe what they want. The stabilized version of the video makes it even easier to see the reality of what’s going on.
kentmcmanigal:
“There are goats that have no ears, or tiny nubs. What if this were a deer (or a goat) with either an ear-less mutation or a lack of ears due to predation?”
Heh heh. A simple plain old animal as yet unrecognized by science - why such a thing is so hard for people to accept I still am not quite sure - is a far greater likelihood, if you ask me, than an animal like you describe just happening to take a swim in a lake right in front of a camera. (Never mind that ears or no, it looks like neither goat nor deer.)
cryptidsrus: Not so fast there, buddy! I didn’t say it is definitely an unknown animal, just that I see no way anyone can come to a conclusion of any known animal from what we are looking at. I would say that it is very very open to question what that is. That I would say.
I was afraid that the footage would be showing a smaller creature than we first thought. Phone cameras are not the best. Better cameras are steadily being added to phones. Soon I hope cameras will have 10 Megapixel cameras in them. Allowing more people to have higher end digital cameras with them most of the time. It could have been a young Champ. We’ll never know from this footage tho. Just not enough detail to tell for sure.
Loren,
I’m feeling your pain. Literally! Instead of a break I’ve torn a ligament in my right ankle. Now that foot is has a cast on it and I’m using crutches. One prob with that is I’m a left below the knee amputee so I’m using crutches and my prosthetic leg to get around which is not easy!
Get well soon!
Will
LanceFoster-
Lets assume it is a very long piece of driftwood; how do you explain the position of the “head” in the first picture (underneath the original youtube video) that occurs at :20? The “neck” and “head” are sunken, leaving only the back and “nose” visible. In order for this position to be possible, the head would have to be in a verticle position, meaning that the neck must have bent. Rather difficult for a piece of wood to accomplish. But hey, people are gonna believe what they want.
I personally don’t see any “bending” seagraves, just changing angles of an inanimate object. But, I am sorry if you took offense to my saying “people are gonna believe what they want.” I just don’t see anything other than driftwood. And I am an animist
Maybe some of the video analysis pros,that such shows as MonsterQuest consult with, will eventually have something to say. For now, let’s just agree to disagree on what we think it is, and remain collegial.
Yeah, the link worked this time, Shovthenos: but the video had been removed from YouTube by this time, which sucks, because I remember that when that first came up here on Cryptomundo, I had dial-up and couldn’t watch the video without taking an hour to do it.
CryptidInformant- a version of the Affolter Champ video can be seen here.
The “Champ” image is a reflection in the water of something hanging in the air not anything under the water. Also the witnesses can’t account for the yellow reflection top left through the railings. Hoax.
Cryptidsrus - if the Olsen object was drifting with the current it wouldn’t be leaving a wake.
Additionally, the buoy in the background would be leaving one. Relax, no cryptids were involved in this movie. Move on, folks, nothing to see here…
I still say its a log, nothing moves other than it going forward, drifting towards shore. No bobdy movement at all, no trace or sign of muscles. Its either being pushed or pulled. It would be great if was champ playing with a stick!
I have been mulling this over for a while and dont think there is an answer with the imformation available and that it is therefore a USO (unidentified swimming object). A hoax could explain almost anything, but assuming it is not, I see an animal that swims, flexes its neck, is spooked by the observer, partly submerges, moves away, turns back, gets past the observer, partly re-emerges then move off at a less convergent angle.
What that animal might be is difficult to say, the high hump seems to high for a known animal. Could it be a herbivore with a gas bloated belly ? (This happens to turtles too). Strangely the head changes from a pointy little worm like thing to what looks like a box, temporarily then back. Did the subject get some weed on its head which then dropped off.
Nature can always surprise perhaps in this case by an the animal that is familiar with something unfamiliar going on. The surprise might instead, be something entirely new, at least to this area.
More imformation is needed and thats where the locals come in, keeping an eye on the area, looking for clues !
Sorry about your foot. You gotta drink your milk!
Norman-uk,
I have noticed that none of these crypto sites seem to have any members who live at the monster lakes, so there isn’t anyone to ask to go look for us.
Do the locals know something we don’t? Why isn’t there a single cryptomundo member in Burlington?
Wuffing, with all due respect, you are incorrect, there are readers of Cryptomundo lakeside, and their photos have been shared here for weeks.
My appreciation to them, and ongoing credits to them have been noted.
Sorry Mr Coleman, I didn’t know that. It seems like weeks since you asked people to go find out the size of the buoy in the video. That plus the height of the cameraphone above the water would help experts work out the size of the object. How come nobody came up with those figures?
The photos posted here showing the bathers were taken from two different elevations and positions at the cove, and both are different than the Olsen video so they don’t help too much.
Readers living anywhere in the world can help solve this mystery but they need the figures to work out the facts.
Still writhing over this, after looking at Ben Radfords helpful site to find out what it isnt ! His evidence seems to be, this is what it could be, therefore six months later this is what is was ! The fact is no one knows what it was unless there was a perpetrator, like a burglar swimming home with his loot! Fanciful but no evidence.
Of course an otter may be more probable than anything else but there are flaws in that theory and is tghere any evidence for 6ft otters in the USA? Size is a good start and I am not saying LC’s figures are wrong as I dont quite understand them but i am sure a mathematical genius could do wonders with the available imformation. I am not and cannot find my schoolmaths books so i’m out. Anyway the slates are crumbling. So i if did tackle it, it would take me 10 years.
If the creature is compared with the wake bouy as if they were side by side and taking the bouy as standing 30ins out of the water. The creature would measure about 8 feet. Which would give a maximum size. Then ways can be found to estimate its minimum size by for example assuming the camera was 12 feet off the ground and as the waves are lapping nearbye 165 feet base line and the camera is vertical you have right angled triangle and the distance of the creature from the bouy can be measured adjusted for perspective. One I did got me about 2ft 6 ins. I think it IS possible to work out a provisional size for the creature by this means and getting more imformation on the ground.
I think this sighting is going to run and run or it ought too and these calculations and considerations will be made somtime
I did wonder about a grebe which can move its feathers about on its head and look different plus there are some shapes on the creatures back which could be wings. Seems abit too samll though.
I’m from Burlington, VT and have spent a lot of my time at Oakledge Park, right where this video was filmed. I can verify that the video was shot in the exact location depicted in Loren’s account in the above article.
Actually, I just went to this park last weekend (the weekend of the Fourth) and took my own pictures as evidence and paid special attention to the buoys and the three oil tanks in the background (they’re actually historical artifacts now, that’s why they’re still in the lake). I likewise took pictures of the shoreline, the city of Burlington in the background, and hiked around the shore (it’s very rocky, high ledges over the lake, not a sandy shore) and took pictures of where Olsen was standing as he filmed.
Hi Stephanie,
Great to hear about your photos. We need to know how high Mr Olsen’s camera was above the water, the size of the buoy and its distance from the camera. And of course I’d like to see your photos!
Thanks
wuffing.
The bouy is supposed to be 10 ins in diameter with 30 ins sticking out of the water-in calmish conditions, which it was when the photos were taken. In some pics it looks bigger compared to the people on the rocks . It would be nice if somebody could safely check the bouys measurements as it is a good reference point. You may know there is a picture of the bouy on this site at an earlier thread.
I am glad you are taking an interest, hopefully you may at least remember your school maths mine is too long ago. I have had 30 ins posts set up in my garden to see how the apparent size changes with distance, only limited success. If I could apply the inverse square rule or something like, which I can’t that would be a better way.
The distance from the bouy to the creature can at least be provisionaly calculated from the relative length of lines drawn to the camera lens from points of interest where they intersect at an arc drawn from the camera lens. I notice the distance of the creature will be much larger than so far estimated ! I would be inclined to work on the bouy being 165 feet from the camera about 8-10 feet above the water line.
This is my maths and I apologise if this if seems to be rubbishs!
I’m trying to find out the exact distance from the buoy to the point where Olsen was standing, but cannot find it online of course, though I did find depth charts. My next step is to call a ranger at the park tomorrow and see what they can tell me. I wasn’t about to swim out there to find out myself and the buoy itself only says “Go slow” on it.
Since Olsen was holding his phone to film, I’m going to assume he was holding it at the average height of a man. Obviously he wasn’t using a tripod, so it’s anyone’s guess what height the camera is.
I will say this, that buoy isn’t far from the shore, it’s VERY misleading in the video and looks much, much farther out than it really is. Also, the water isn’t more than 10 feet deep in that whole area. You can actually see the bottom if you look closely at the map on google.
Well Norman, I can easily do a “what if” calculation. From the photo of the promontory and Juniper Island I make the height of the middle tree to be 25.9 ft, and so a probable ground height at Olsen’s location is around 4 ft above water level. Camera height will be around 9 ft. If the buoy is 165 ft away and is 2.5ft high it measures inv tan 2.5 / 165 = 0.868 degrees high and that is 16 pixels on my copy. The “object” is about 40 pixels below the buoy distance, which is 40/16 x 0.868 = 2.17 degrees below the buoy. Just make a triangle with camera ht as 8, 9 or 10 ft and the distance to the object comes out at 92, 97 or 101 ft. So object scale is about 56%, 59% or 62% of buoy scale, and object is 86, 90, or 95 inches long. That’s end to end working on image number ..0291.
It’s a whole lot of IFs, and I don’t think its an animal so I’m just working out how big a hoax it might be.
Wuffing, I actually think Olsen was standing right on the point, probably only a foot or so away from the water. When I went to the park last weekend I made sure to look at where the buoy was, as well as the cribs (oil tanks), standing where I thought he was according to all of that. That would put him at almost water level.
My morning is too busy to call the park, but I plan on doing that this afternoon to try to find out how far out that buoy is. We just got back from a trip though and with a three year old, a big dog…well, I’ve been rather busy. :p
Stephanie, thanks to your generous help we are getting the data we need to measure the object.
According to my figures which I made using Photoshop the Olsen object is 5.1 times longer than the buoy is high, in image #0291. It is closer of course so it is smaller in proportion to its % of the buoy distance. The object distance only depends on the camera ht above the water. My last post gave percentages for 10, 9 & 8 ft camera height. You Stephanie tell me he was lower down so 7ft high gives 53%, 6ft high gives 49% and 5ft high gives 44% of buoy range.
The object would then be 81″,75″ or 67″ long if the visible buoy height is 30″. The lower down the camera was, the closer and smaller the object is.
With different buoy height and distance just alter things in proportion.
Okay guys, I just got some pivotal information. I spoke to a woman at the Burlington Parks and Rec, who takes the water samples at that spot of Oakledge Park. She told me that the distance from the point where the video was filmed to that buoy is between 45-50 feet away, 60 tops (but she doubts it’s that far out). She takes her samples from the beach, which is right there but further away from the buoy, and her exact number is 90 feet from the beach to the buoy, but she stressed that where the video was shot was less than 60 feet away from the buoy. (She saw the video too, btw).
The height of the buoy that sticks out of the water is 3 feet. The depth in that spot of the lake is less than 10 feet, and she told me when that video was filmed, the lake was at a low level, so it was closer to 9, maybe 9.5 feet deep right there.
Well, further research I’ve done with the distance the woman from Parks and Recs gave me seems to be wrong. I believe that the buoy is 200 feet from the beach, not 90 like she said, however, I think it’s still 60 feet from the point where the video was filmed to the buoy. I’m using my photographs, a still from the video I took and Google maps that has an accurate scale for distance and have pin pointed where the buoy is.
One picture that I took, I must have been standing in nearly the exact spot as him, with the cribs, buoy and city of Burlington in the background. I also hiked around the other side of the ledges across the inlet to get shots of where he was standing from a distance and made sure to get the buoy in the picture and have used that to estimate where exactly that bugger is.
Stephanie, it is very unusual to find someone who can estimate distances accurately, especially over water. Try to make friends with a golfer who owns a laser rangefinder, and borrow it for an hour. Then measure the distances between everything in all the photos. You are doing very well. Thank you.
Stephanie,
Thanks for your on site information. I tried to determine buoy
location based solely on online info. See my video above ¨Champ Size Calculation¨. Maybe we can settle the buoy distance now!
Can you go to a cliff location and align the buoy visually with the
right side of Jupiter island.
Remember the spot on the cliff. (get a reference point that would stand out on google earth)
Then go to tip of rock outcrop where Olsen was and find a reference
object on the horizon aligned with buoy. (Used blue in video above.)
Then go to google earth.
Draw line (Path line in Google earth) from right side of Jupiter Island to your cliff location.
Draw line between Olsen position and your reference object in distance.
Then use ruler tool to measure where they two lines intersect.
Olsen Position to Intersection of the two lines.
Thanks.
Al
Very cool post.
Al, you may be able to calculate the buoy position from data already in this thread even before Stephanie posts the “cheats”.
If you look at the two hi-res images of bathers on the ledges you will see there is noticeable parallax between the two photos - both horizontal and vertical.
If you identify the obvious landmarks like the foreground buildings, the chimney stack and the University clock tower on a detailed map of the area you should be able to fix the buoy quite easily.
Then Stephanie can tell us whether you are right or wrong!
Where is that photo expert when you need him?