ktamsor2-

I was wondering who taught the cameraman to adjust the focus, turn away from the action, and generally do a really crappy job filming? I do believe in cryptids but this film really ticks me off considering it’s supposedly filmed by a pro.

In the interest of accuracy, the film was shot neither by Downes nor by a professional. The commentary states that the camera was handled by a 19 year old member of the party named Max. I find that interesting because it enabled Downes, the “pro”, to make his observations with the naked eye while the video was being shot. The eye sees in much clearer detail than a digital camera.

Thank you, I stand corrected. He was speaking of “Don” being the “Expert”, LOL. Corrected my spelling as well.

Mr. Downes’ best actions he could take would be to sheepishly admit his mistake, make a few jokes about it, and move on. It happens to everyone and he needs to show he can take it as well as dish it out (Downes had an article by CFZ member Richard Freeman on his blog September 6th which contained lines like “[Michel Meurger] dismisses native testimony and has no zoological experience or qualifications to back up his absurd theories. In his book Lake Monster Traditions he tried (and dismally failed) to dismiss Canadian lake monsters…. Rubbish! Meurger is sorely lacking in any zoological experience.”) and take a ribbing at his expense.
I remember at my previous position complaining to IT about an error message the reporting software had generated. After the person in charge of that software spent about 5 seconds looking at my report, he declared “It should give you an error message, considering the end date you entered was February 31st.” Yikes! I owned up to my error and not spotting it, and kidded myself about it for a few days afterwards (“We need to set up a meeting. Does March 40th work for you?”). Everyone moved on and soon no one remembered it and my boss’ label as “the most technically knowledgeable employee he had, in two states” remained relatively intact. If I’d refused to own up to my error, complained the error message was too cryptic, the software shouldn’t have let me enter that value, etc. and refused to make light of it, I’d only have been seen as a sourpuss and an egotist and people would probably still be whispering about the incident. Downes’ jousting at windmills is only going to entrench this episode in people’s memories and this, rather than his book “The Owlman and Others”, will become his legacy. Hey, some of us have to sit in an office running reports, or have lost our jobs, while others get to run around Ireland looking for lake monsters. He should put it in perspective, be thankful for the good things in his life, not get hung up on this, and move on.

Failing to take the advice about moving on myself , I saw this bit in CFZ’s press release this morning from Mr. Redfern’s blog, which I now see is also covered here on Cryptomundo:

“Footage from the expedition and from the Irish lakes are being submitted for inclusion in a major BBC documentary about the CFZ, which is being made by Minnow Films, an award winning British film production company, over the next eight months.”

Now, we all know from Mr. Coleman’s crypto-union organizing post that members of the CFZ need to eat, but it certainly doesn’t help to hype Doc Shiel-inspired footage beyond the facts at the same time a documentary is beginning to be made about your organization. At the very least, it might suggest a bit of gung-ho “aggressiveness” on Mr. Downes’ part to find something of major significance during that eight month window and could have colored his perceptions.

It’s sad that people like Shiels continue to sully the field of cryptozoology with their garbage like this. You have to seriously question Jon Downes’ judgement for associating with a known & admitted hoaxer like Shiels(especially one who is famous for Ed Wood-quality results, lol). Why Downes would bother with this guy when he’s trying to run a supposedly legitimate organization is beyond my comprehension.

I think it’s a given, something that has been seen many times before, that you must be immediately suspicious when video or photographic eyewitnesses seem to do everything they possibly can to mar the quality of the film(bad focus, shaky cam, chaotic shots of the ground when there’s a “monster” right in front of them, etc.) and keep a pointless distance between themselves and this amazing discovery. As previously said, there was absolutely no reason to film from that distance, since the video itself indicates no impediments en route to the shore. Of course, we do know their is a point to keeping that unnecessary distance; it skews perspective, perception, and doesn’t allow the viewer to see what’s actually there. That makes it much easier to “see” a monster when you can’t really see what’s going on and the narrator is telling you that you’re seeing something extraordinary. I can tell you this much; if I saw something strange and had a camera or camcorder handy, you can bet I’d be right down on the banks or in the shallows, getting as close as safely possible to see what’s what.

Unfortunately for Mr Downes this whole sorry episode is entirely of his own making.

1. He continues to associate himself with Tony “Doc” Shiels. A man who is a self-confessed hoaxer. So much so, Jonathon Downes proudly proclaims Mr Shiels as being the Eire Representative of the CFZ. He cannot complain when people question the integrity and motives of the CFZ when they allow someone with such a dubious past to be a high profile member. Nor should he complain if people question any evidence where Mr Shiels is in any way connected.

2. By quickly releasing this footage with its sensationlistic voiceover, without it appears, actually looking at the footage closely, again he has left himself open to criticism. A few hours going through the footage frame by frame, something you’d expect a professional organisation, (as the CFZ cxlaims to be), to have done, would have shown that the ripples and wakes were made by fish and waterfowl. Nothing more nothing less.

In the world of cryptozoology, people’s reputations rest on the things they associate themselves with. With his backtracking of epic proportions, his failure to allow certain peoples comments, pointing out his errors, on his blog, (only allowing the ones that seem to praise him or agree with him), and his foul language aimed at anyone who dares to disagree with his emminance, he has let himself down.

His actions and the actions of other members of the CFZ, have diminished the already crumbling reputation of his organisation in the eyes of many people

Downes never refers to the objects in the video as lake monsters. He labels them “anomalous objects” and prefaces his comments with phrases like “is reminiscent of”, “seemed to be”, “could be”, and “would suggest that”. Although he is clearly enthused by what he saw, he maintains objectivity.

Downes is completely up-front about the circumstances surrounding the video. He openly discusses the presence and clouded history of “Doc” Shiels. He states exactly what was and what wasn’t done with the video and identifies the camera and editing software used. All you need to do is listen to the commentary.

Downes made observations in the field, generated a hypothesis, tested that hypothesis by making the video available in a public forum, and has now modified his hypothesis. He acknowledges the probability of a large bird, but remains intrigued by other things in the video that aren’t large birds. That isn’t “begrudgingly moving to a half&half position”. It’s the Scientific Method.

If there’s a sin here, it’s that Downes’ enthusiasm led him to make the video public before having it scrutinized privately. Perhaps he viewed that as an efficient way of assessing its validity. Maybe he wanted to generate discussion. Maybe he simply allowed a misinterpretation to get the better of him. Whatever the motive, honest mistakes aren’t “bad science”. They’re learning opportunities. Making “mistakes” is a key component of the process that turns a hypothesis into a theory.

Downes is well-known in cryptozoology. He heads an organization that is respected, has published much well-researched material, and for the past seventeen years has produced the world’s only regularly published cryptozoological magazine. Why the willingness to attach sinister motives to a man whose sincerity has never before been questioned? Remote control submarines? Modern camera trickery? Intentionally shoddy camera work? Advertising logic? A good try? Mind games? What on earth has this man done to have his character impugned like that?

If a touch of eccentricity and an honest misindentification is enough to get an otherwise respectable researcher pilloried in the cryptozoological community, then I would suggest that there’s a rather long line waiting for their turn in the stocks.

take it frame by frame and look at the dark shape at the front. The illusion from the distance is that it is something churning beneath the water…but, looking at the dark spot at the front, it follows on top of the white water, then continues on after the surface water settles…until that later spot where it touches the surface again. The white is not water churning from under the surface, but water churning from the surface.

First, I have not come across reports of water cryptids that were completely white…as we know, albinos or even just lighter colored critters in any environment are at a disadvantage (except for maybe the population of white deer in wisconsin, but that’s another story…), and a white, water cryptid would be much more visibile more often…and we would have been hearing a whole lot more out of it.

Second, the distance is another one. As is said on the narrative, the kid and older observer are excited, AND seeing something totally foreign…their first real response would be to move in closer to get a better look with the camera.

Third, when the camera is following a wake early on in the footage…to the right side of the big island…the narrator talks about the wake as probably being a cryptid, but our cameraman who is only 19 follows it for a bit and then pans away…and if he really thought he was seeing a water cryptid, do I really think he’d non-challantly watch it for a bit and then move on…yeah, whatever.

Good try…but no great white eel…

…namely that it was probably a bird, but maybe a giant unknown aquatic creature was actually trailing the bird. I just don’t know how he’s ever going to live this one down, meaning the hyperbole about the importance of the footage that he says in the narration.

Chabuhi, what you wrote speaks to something that puzzles me. Granted, there’s a few cameras now that do direct YouTube upload, but for the most part one has to transfer the footage from the camera to the computer and have it converted. The resolution of the original footage has to be better than the YouTube clip. Why didn’t Downes at least look at the footage once, full-res, full-screen (maybe on a television screen) before uploading? I got the impression that the narration was added after the video was shot, which means he had to spend some time with the footage before sharing. As you say, there’s really no mistaking the fact that it’s a bird, so why didn’t he catch this before sharing the video? The kindest explanation I can think of is that he saw what he wanted to see (where’s you-know-who who loves to talk about the infallibility of eyewitness reports? ). Like I said before, I don’t think this video is “fake” or that Shiels in any way altered it; but I think he filled the heads of suggestible people with impressions of what he wanted them to see, brought them to this spot for a reason, then their imaginations did the rest.

A couple of points. First the gent’s commentary sounds like a rather poorly written short story. Second, we’re dealing with a known fantasist/hoaxer in this clip. So you’d be foolish not to be highly dubious.

Then the static marking on the lake’s surface. These change in the various shots, and don’t seem to represent either a monster or an obvious natural phenomenon.

I have to admit, I was looking at birds landing and fish jumping, but when I saw the torpedo section I thought either a digital effect was in place, or some kind of remote-control submarine, if such things exist. It doesn’t look like a cormorant or any water-foul going at that speed. Actually doesn’t look like an animate object at all. The commentary suggests it’s both animate, black and huge, but it seems a blurry sweep, which appears to break the water once early in the sweep, and makes a splash at the end. It arches in a parabola… really not sure a cormorant taking off could look like that, could it?

I suspect modern camera trickery. Opinions?