Comments on: The Olsen Champ Video: A Year Later

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 21:02:47 +0000

Ben Radford also says that Olsen is lying about using the video function on the cellphone.

I say Ben Radford is a liar because his face appears very red when it appears on TV.

By: sonofthedestroyer

sonofthedestroyer — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:59:23 +0000

Ben Radford!

Man who makes all kinds of twisted out of common sense explanations instead of dealing with what is obvious.

Your colleague Joe Nickell is no better. Made a fool of himself several times on MonsterQuest episodes.

You dismissed Mansi photo as a tree trunk/roots which is harder to believe than it being a real creature. Of course you need many pages to explain it as it is so ridiculous.

The way you addressed this latest Champlain incident was no surprise.

We see something very odd and you berate people for ‘wanting to see a monster’. You told us it was a Moose right? If my memory serves me right? Even though it does not look like a moose. Especially when you see its tail come out some distance behind its body and the effortless way it moves and stops and moves again in the water. Something a land dwelling creature like a moose would not manage to do.

But we are crazy and ‘wanting to a see monster’. You of course the big ‘rational man’.

By: WALL

WALL — Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:52:22 +0000

I would love to believe this is an authentic head and neck video of a “Lake Monster”, the problem I have with it is the fact that it almost seems to be nonchalant in the way it is being filmed. I know I would be running in the direction it swam or at least attempting to following it and I most definitely would have filmed this object until out of view. My first thoughts were that it was either deer or a moose. It’s still great to have these debates about what is on film.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:58:14 +0000

As we all have seen before, any photographic or video evidence of anything unproven will eventually be classified as a hoax or misidentified. Especially when the images are unclear and dodgy. Even if you could get pictures that are crystal clear, some would call it “photoshopped”. The only way to prove that something exists is to capture it, dead or alive. I’m not claiming that the video is a hoax or not. I’m just saying that some people need more than pictures and videos as evidence. The thing that would sucks is that, if that creature is real and the only survivor of its kind, it’ll probably be killed or die in captivity and eventually dissected all in the name of science.

By: n8dogg79

n8dogg79 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 22:52:26 +0000

Definitely not a deer or moose. Has anyone else noticed the closeup of the head bears a striking resemblance to a photo that used to appear on Dennis Jay Hall’s Champquest website?

By: CoffeeKitsune

CoffeeKitsune — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:51:40 +0000

Not sure if it means anything or not, but rewatching the video I noticed a couple of times where behind the creature it looked almost like the end of could would be its tail poking out of the water. I think it was around 1:30 – 1:32 and 1:40 – 1:42 that I saw it. A little behind the mystery creature/object’s back, a small black tip appears and disappears quickly.

Also, I personally do not think Moose or Deer. It’s possible, but even with how poor the quality is, the shape of the head doesn’t seem to be long enough, nor are there large ears visible. The head and face look very rounded and blunt rather than elongated like a deeer, moose, or similar ungulate. It almost looks like there can possibly be small rounded ears though? So hard to tell!

By: charlie23

charlie23 — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:36:26 +0000

Geriatric bather carrying hammer, possibly with mange?

By: wuffing

wuffing — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 19:25:55 +0000

LanceFoster wrote ” I still see a water-eroded tree trunk, probably between 6-9 ft long, pulled along by means of heavy fishing line or light rope, from the point of land at the left towards the tree-line bank at right.”

The obvious objection to this scenario is that there is nowhere to launch the “tree-trunk” from as the photographer is at the end of the promontory and the object is 177 ft (my calcs) further out. There is no “point of land on the left”. A boat would have been needed or, my own preferred solution, a scuba diver propelling the object from behind and below. Either way, I do not think this video shows any kind of wild animal, but I was interested in trying to gauge its size as a math exercise. W

By: LanceFoster

LanceFoster — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 04:50:38 +0000

IMHO, a hoax, not even an honest error/blobsquatch. I still see a water-eroded tree trunk, probably between 6-9 ft long, pulled along by means of heavy fishing line or light rope, from the point of land at the left towards the tree-line bank at right. Someone would have been stationed out of camera range to the right. It was previously naturally submerged so is somewhat water-saturated, and rises and turns when pulled, and sinks when the pulling stops, and rises when pulled again. People who have been fishing, and caught their hook on a snag have seen submerged wood of various sizes act this way before.

By: Benjamin Radford

Benjamin Radford — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 01:42:26 +0000

>>the least I can do for those who can’t afford them, and yet would like to debate his theory, is to mention it.

Much appreciated, MEC Loren, I overlooked that. My solution to Mansi’s photo is certainly no secret, as I have explained it repeatedly on TV and in articles for Fortean Times, the Skeptical Inquirer, and elsewhere. Much of the basic explanation is available for free on the Web with a minute or two of savvy Google searching; no need to buy my book unless readers want the complete, detailed explanation.