Comments on: Breaking Update: The Correct Length For “Olsen’s Champ”?

By: CryptoInformant 2.0

CryptoInformant 2.0 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:49:03 +0000

Well, from all the videos I’ve seen here, I’m not so sure that “tail” is connected to this animal at all, but I see nothing clear to say that it isn’t. If the animal is 24 feet long, then my previous guess of a juvenile animal is likely way off; a 24 foot juvenile would most likely mean a massive adult.

Also, Korrolocke: a 24-foot Lab? Even an 8-foot one would be implausible, a 24-foot one is just ridiculous.

By: LanceFoster

LanceFoster — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:15:24 +0000

Shoot. You don’t need to swim out. There’s another application of triangulation that works on the vertical triangulation rather than the horizontal form shown here. If I remember my geometry from 10th grade a million years ago.

Determine the height of the individual taking the photo. He is pointing the camera down at a particular angle to intersect the water surface. Ysing that formula I can’t remember, the height of the person calculated with the angle of intersection will give you the length of the base of the triangle, aka the distance from the photographer.

Anyways…as a visual artist and as a lifelong hunter… eyeballing it, and using the ripples of the water as a guide, I estimated the length of the log at between 10 and 15 feet long. I believe the driftwood is being pulled along slowly, periodically slowing to let it sink and bob, through the water by fishing line from the point of land on the left at the beginning, by a person hidden out of frame on the other bank in the brushy shoreline to the right.

By: Ouroborus Jay

Ouroborus Jay — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:34:04 +0000

Also, I’m not willing to eliminate the possibility that it’s something inanimate. I don’t want to parade the notion of the cliched ‘log’, but it hasn’t been properly debunked, either. While the visable portion of the object changes constantly, the base shap doesn’t seem to change all the drastically. Most of this is due to poor lighting and having to deal with a shaded profile of the object.
The depth at the location hasn’t been verified. All that’s been said is that “it’s fairly deep” and “deeper than it usually was due to rain”
If the object were a log(or something else inanimate), the changing shape could be explained by the object dragging on the bottom. (This is movement is somewhat consistent to other logs I have seen in the local lakes).

All this aside, the only thing that really discredits a log is the speed in which it appears to move(inspite of the current). But it could be explained as a deliberate movement(read: hoax)

I don’t want to jump on everyone’s parade, but I’m really kinda shocked that people haven’t gone out to the site and attempted the needed measurements to help determine whatever the object was.

By: Ouroborus Jay

Ouroborus Jay — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:21:34 +0000

I don’t I buy a length of 24 feet. I think the object is a lot closer to Olsen than it appears.

Until we get someone out there with a boat or something we can measure against, I’m not going to be convinced of any speculated or “calculated” length.

By: Ghost314

Ghost314 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:28:15 +0000

If you closely at the stabilized footage, there’s a ripple of some kind consistently behind (to the left, in the image) the visible object. It doesn’t appear to me to be a wake, but instead, it looks as if it’s attached, perhaps below the water. Therefore, if this is a living creature, it may be serpentine and quite a bit longer than anyone here has suggested. Alternately, maybe it’s a cable or hose attached to a mechanical device or inflated object.

I will say, its swimming behavior is very odd. In the stablilized, footage, it appears to come to a complete stop at times, but its shape doesn’t change appreciably as you might expect. Strange.

I don’t think it’s a moose or otter or Labrador. I have no idea what it is.

By: tropicalwolf

tropicalwolf — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 21:19:15 +0000

If the length on the table is 24 feet, I have to ponder something. I have not seen anything in any of the images that in any way convinces me that this thing is anywhere near that long. I agree with grantmj on the “wave optical illusion” theory. How did anyone come up with an interpretation that suggest 24 feet?

By: aastra

aastra — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:15:55 +0000

Otters — for example — are very good at “disguising” their numbers when they swim in groups (whether or not they do this on purpose I have no idea). Anyway, it can often be difficult to determine exactly how many individuals are present. I’m wondering if that other form that seems to pop up well to the rear is actually the head of another individual.

By: grantmj

grantmj — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:09:33 +0000

My opinion is that the “tail” is nothing more than a wake playing optical tricks. Towards the rear of the image there appears to a slope, indicating the rear of the animal (Looking rather mammalian). Also in another one of the images (around 30 seconds in, when the rear sinks and the front bobs upwards [when it doesn't appear to be animate at all]), I can see what I perceive to be the front of a mammal…slightly more muscular build and definition around the shoulders…

Just my opinion…nothing says fish, reptile, or amphibian about this video.

It most looks like a feline to me…but the otter footage, save for the playfulness, is very similar. Ill otter? Otter in distress? Puma was an interesting hat to throw into the ring…

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:11:39 +0000

The “visible length” that is on the table for discussion is 24 feet, according to the latest analysis that takes into account the multiple appearances of a “tail” or back end of the animate object. People are not watching the entire video if you are only commenting on the 8.4 feet visible on the frozen frame shot on the YouTube screen.

Clearly, a darker object, different in coloring than the waves, makes an appearance behind the main body of the object.

What are the opinions on that length?

By: swnoel

swnoel — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:11:07 +0000

What are the objects in the back ground … boats, islands, ???

Those buildings are not there in google earth search… this can’t be the right location!

This doesn’t make sense.