My biggest problem with what’s being said is the use of the words “bio-sonar” and “echo-location”. These terms contain some implicit assumptions that shouldn’t be made. Echo-location is an *action* – the use of sound waves to determine the location of objects. One can’t claim that the sound is being *used* in a certain way without knowing about the entity creating the sound and its behavior. At best, Ms. Muggenthaler can state that she’s recorded sounds that are similar to, but not the same as, the sounds made by other organisms that have been shown to use echo-location. There’s an implicit acceptance that the sound she’s recorded is made by a living creature and more specifically that it’s using it to navigate, neither of which are borne out by the evidence so far at hand. Claims about *behavior* can’t be justified at this point. Ms. Muggenthaler had an article published regarding the similarity between whale and rhino sounds, but certainly nothing suggests that the rhinos use echo-location, no matter how similar the sounds, so similarity of these sounds to whales and dolphins cannot be used to justify a leap to claim that echo-location is being used in the lake.

Wuffing rightly notes that Ms. Muggenthaler engaged in extensive speculation in that article regarding the existence of a creature, its size and its behavior. She’s also stated that her evidence is irrefutable. Yet she’s also stated that there isn’t enough evidence yet to justify a scientific paper and that even her initial data report is on hold pending more information. I’m not sure how one can have irrefutable evidence on the one hand but also not enough to be able to make it into print or convince a panel of peers.

I also read about her group using private funding to put up 24/7 solar sound detectors around the lake, but no information yet about what if anything was recorded. It’s my opinion that it’s inappropriate to move on to using others’ money for this type of monitoring without having at least peer-reviewed the original finding, but I guess it’s “irrefutable”. I also read that during Ms. Muggenthaler’s sound recordings, a group of divers were placed into the water immediately upon hearing the sound, yet over 45 minutes observed nothing, let alone a 15-foot creature. Again, I would think this would give one pause before proceeding to a large scale “Phase II”. Perhaps a set of three boats to perform triangulation on the source of the sound if it were heard again would have been a better next step.

I’m uneasy getting into this, but this is not the only case with Ms. Muggenthaler and speculation. If one examines her organization’s website you’ll learn that it’s a very small outfit consisting of a few people with no direct ties to any college or research institution.
There are claims and appeals for funds on the front page regarding two “inventions” that they are working on. Both descriptions are vague. The first talks about animals and healing. I tracked down some information in an article where it’s somewhat hard to differentiate between the views of the author and Ms. Muggenthaler. However, it seems that there’s some anecdotal observations regarding cats and their frequencies of arthritis and broken bones and a major leap to the idea that cats’ purring is some form of “vibrational medicine” to heal them, or at least their bones. This interpretation of the article is supported by the description of Ms. Muggenthaler’s invention, which does talk about animals having the ability to heal and this invention’s use on people. I did not manage to track down any other sources regarding the second invention, but the description suggests it could be used for earthquake detection. Needless to say, if Ms. Muggenthaler could accomplish either of these things, there would be a Nobel Prize waiting for her. Of course, nothing on her website links to any peer-reviewed (or otherwise) articles she’s written regarding “vibrational medicine”, earthquake detection, etc. I’m not questioning her abiilty to perform science, but I would politely suggest that she’s begun to exhibit a pattern of taking her data and extrapolating far, far in advance of where the evidence has led so far.

All we know is that three *different* sounds were heard, the results have never been independently reviewed or verified, and there has been no declared successful repeat of this experiment by Ms. Muggenthaler or others since then. There was no known attempt to acertain who or what might have been operating on the lake that day that could be the source of the sounds. No visual identification was made even when the sounds were detected close by. Ms. Muggenthaler has made several subsequent claims that can’t be justified by the known data. I’m not sure that’s enough to hold up as proof of a large, unknown echo-locating creature in the lake as yet. I’d like to see a repeat of the experiment, and if successful, attempts to pinpoint the location of the sound with the intent of tracking and visually indentifying the source. As Wuffing notes, an unexpected mechanical source is quite possible.

Whoa. So Champ’s a mammal, we got it on video, thanks Olsen, and it should be called Mammalreallyus olsenasaurus? We’re done here?

Whoa. If a photo cannot be considered conclusive proof of an unknown animal, and it almost never is, a sound recording sure can’t. Particularly with some of the funnies of the genre detailed in this very thread.

I am very glad she’s on the scene. But with pronouncements like that she should be a tad more careful, wot?

Like Leftover Salmon said, where is the background noise data? Like Red Pill Junkie said, where is the peer reviewed paper?
And I will say “where are the stampeding zoologists?”

The more digital equipment they have running in series off boat inverters, the better their chance of making their own biosonar signals, but a land-based station using “commercial” electricity and shielded cables should eliminate some of these problems.

Good quality hydrophones will still pick up boats, sonars, intermittent water pumps and industrial equipment miles away, and even trucks driving along the roads, so I wish them Good Luck in unraveling the result.

I would suggest they take the original biosonar recording kit back to the same place on the same boat and leave it there for a few days to find out if they can record the same signals again.

Back in the Dark Ages at Loch Ness some Americans thought they had recorded mating crustaceans deep in the lake – it turned out their equipment was picking up teleprinter signals from a nearby underwater cable!

Also, looking at pictures of plesiosaur skulls, there may have been room in their skulls for a proportionately-smaller equivalent of the melon found in dolphins – something used in the process of echolocation.

Just to clarify. Any acoustician is going to test ambient noise (sounds that are native to the area) in the case of atmospheric conditions: trains, airplanes, birds, other terrestrial creatures in the area etc. Underwater it would be fish, eel, turtle etc. recorded in their native habitat. Zoos and aquariums are visited and recordings made independently of the source (the lake). In addition, a literature search is performed and experts in the respective fields of the known animals in a lake are contacted. This eliminates known animals.
Then, and only then you are sure that echolocation only occurs from a novel species.