83 Responses to “Breaking News: Nahuelito Photographed”

1. stompy responds: April 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm

   fake

2. Jeremy_Wells responds: April 17th, 2006 at 12:28 pm

   The first obvious problem with these photographs any skeptical critic is going to point out is that there are no other objects to use as reference points for size.

   Another thing that I would point to is the obvious loop of body/neck immediately behind the head in the first photo. If this is a plesiosaur type creature, that seems to be come unnecessary contortion of the neck. If it is a snake/serpent type creature, the loop is still wrong for a snake’s swimming motion, which is a side to side undulation, not unlike their movement on land.

   The one snake motion I can think of off the top of my head that might result in a somewhat similar contortion would be that of a sidewinder rattlesnake.

   The fact that the “mouth” is open in both images is also somewhat strange. This could also be used by the skeptical as proof of a model or odd shaped log. But if one considers that this might be some sort of aggressive territorial display then both the open mouth and unnatural contortions of the body might make more sense.

   Right now my conclusion is “need more data.”

3. paperdragon responds: April 17th, 2006 at 12:30 pm

   My first impression is that its a fake. When I look at the two images the angle of the head relative to the neck hasnt changed. I will say it appears to be a real object in the water as evidenced by the nice shadow in picture two.

4. ancient_robot responds: April 17th, 2006 at 12:43 pm

   The photo has elements of miniature photography: the foreground water seems to be out of focus which means, i am guessing, that the object is rather close to the shore/cameraman (like 4 feet). If this is the case, the object is tiny.

5. fuzzy responds: April 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

   But if this is a real cryptid, who knows whether its undulations are vertical, horizontal or both?

   What about the third photo, for comparison?

6. Jeremy_Wells responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:05 pm

   Indeed. One never knows how a true cryptid might move. Although it doesn’t seem an efficient way to move, any way I can figure it, I’m not an expert in kinesiology, and I’ll leave that to those more qualified to offer an opinion than myself.
   The one thing that disturbs me though is that the vertical undulations are just a little TOO reminiscient of those seen on sea serpents in old mariner’s maps (you know, next to markers reading “Here there be dragons”).

7. Jos Gagné responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:18 pm

   To me, it blatantly looks like a model taken on the shore line : notice the size of the waves… They indicate, to me, a small model.
   -Jos

   PS my friend that just walked in as I’m writing this message said ‘I’ve seen better stuff on Worth1000.com ‘

8. stormwalkernz responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm

   An obvious fake - if you look in the first photo, it is close to shore as there is a rise in water at the bottom of the photo like a wave about to break.
   The second photo gives it away properly, if you look you can see the stones and i mean stones of the lake bottom, either those are massive boulders or this was taken close to shore, also notice the swell line once again in front of the “creature”.
   regretably just another fake which only hinders real cryptozoology not helps it.

9. stormwalkernz responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:22 pm

   additionally the eye looks hollow in the first photo.

10. RocketSeason responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:29 pm

    Come on guys! Why even bother posting this? This is obviously a fake! Real creatures don’t move through the water in this silly, snakey, loopy, way.

11. er0k responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    so where is the third photo?!

12. M Valdemar responds: April 17th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    For those who read Spanish, here’s the original article.

    That link looks like it’s only good for today. I can’t find any link to the archives, either. I’ve checked the Nacíonal and the story wasn’t picked up outside Rio Negro. You might want to save it locally if you want to read it at leisure.

    My Spanish isn’t good enough to pick up on subtleties of tone, but it’s worth pointing out that the article is on the Society page (e.g., “Lifestyle” in most U.S. papers), and appears above an article about another cryptid, a certain oviparous lagomorph who appears around this time of year. So, I don’t think anyone’s taking these images too seriously.

13. mrdark responds: April 17th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

    Fakey McFakerson.

14. ZenBug responds: April 17th, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    Good call on the blurry foreground, ancient_robot. Definitely looks very close to the camera to me. Miniature model, I’d say.

    At least the hoaxer went to the trouble of posing it in two different positions.

15. Loren Coleman responds: April 17th, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Excellent comments. I didn’t want to bias people with my opinion. But I couldn’t agree with you more!

16. fuzzy responds: April 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    RocketSeason #10 - Questionable photos like these are valid for a couple of reasons:

    1~ We all need practice in observation, analysis and critique.

    2~ What if this creature is a small juvenile swimming just off-shore?

    And again, how do we know that “real cryptids” don’t move thru the water in “silly, snakey, loopy, ways”?

    We have to at least consider all the possibilities, eh?

17. hu6h responds: April 17th, 2006 at 4:28 pm

    who cares about Nahuelito, what about those fantastic shots of the bright yellow were-rabbit and its army of children at the same link? those pictures are much more convincing.

18. Ole Bub responds: April 17th, 2006 at 4:54 pm

    “Seaweed”?…..an obvious photo of a Sasquatch swimming the backstroke….

    seeing is believing….

    Creatures from the Fat lagoon….

19. Marlantis Buzz responds: April 17th, 2006 at 5:18 pm

    Results are in…poor cut and paste. The inside of the mouth is darker than the back ground. It should be the same and also create a slight glare too. I also found touch up spots in the water reflection and places they didn’t finish airbrushing…..NEXT!

    Examination time involved took 8 minutes and 4 sips of Foster’s Lager.

20. RocketSeason responds: April 17th, 2006 at 5:30 pm

    Fuzzy #16 -

    Good call, I guess I came at this from the wrong angle.

    the Ely sasquatch video is a good example of how fake evidence can confuse and downplay serious research. The second half of the video which has just recently re-surfaced, is more than enough proof of the hoax, but the damage has already been done and people are confused and led to believe something may be true.

    I guess I am just angry at hoaxers.

    and I am baseing my “silly, snakey” comment on the fact that no other animal on earth can swim in the water in such a way. Science doesn’t support the validity of this photo.

21. Chymo responds: April 17th, 2006 at 6:34 pm

    Occam’s razor says fake. If there were landscape features to judge scale by comparison, then we could meaningfully analyse it. As it is..

22. fuzzy responds: April 17th, 2006 at 8:14 pm

    Science doesn’t support the bumblebee’s flight abilities, either ~ but they fly!

    And Occam’s Razor sometimes sliceth too much!

23. kidquid responds: April 17th, 2006 at 8:39 pm

    Too bad these weren’t in the Wizards of the Coast photo contest! Might have snagged honorable mention…

24. saintly responds: April 17th, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    In all sincerity, what’s the deal with people who “hang out” at cryptozoology sites? It seems that every eyewitness description or every photo is greeted with a knee-jerk “Fake”, reaction.

    If anything, you think you might expect people interested in this area to be a little mor gullible than they should be–not less. If you go to the typical UFO site, you’re going to find people all too willing to believe a photo or a description is really, most likely an alien ship. I don’t personally believe in aliens, but I can understand why someone with that bent might frequent that type of website. i’m particularly unimpressed with varios analyses of why certain photos are fake> Of course, if you proclaim all cryptozoological photos as fakes, you’re certainly never going to be fooled!

    Where are the crypto true-believers? Honestly, it’s not that I’d want any fake to be accepted as real-its just that the general instant reaction makes me wonder what kind of people are drawn to this topic? It’s not just here, it seems to be the case on virtually all crypto sites.

    I say this not so much in reaction to this particular topic, (because they may be fake) but just something I’ve always noticed and wondered about.

    I would expect to see more openminded reflection at the “skeptic” sites. I really wonder if this Topic had been posted on one of those professional sceptic sites whether the reaction would have been any different–but that’s true about many posts here.

    This is all very ironic because if you check, you’ll see a very strong resemblance between these photos and Frank Searles 1972 Nessie Photos.

    You know it may be that what really happens is that a scientific, objective deliberate analysis of items posted here takes place and it is just that after such analyses, the judgement is made that 99 and 44/100 percent of everything is a mistaken identification or a fake–but I’m skeptical :0)

25. rcollins responds: April 17th, 2006 at 10:12 pm

    I am really disappointed to see these photos get a link on Cryptomundo. They are obvious fakes. I could shoot a more convincing photo in my bathtub with a rubber ducky.

    Please don’t treat us as if we are complete idiots who will believe anything.

    Show some worthiness as an editor and get rid of obvious hoaxes like this before you subject us to it.

    It simply makes Cryptomundo look like fools for showing it. Causing you to lose any credibility you may have had.

    And to the hoaxer’s …
    Get a license for photoshop and learn it you’ll do much better trying to look like a bigshot.

26. The big E responds: April 17th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Although I am no scientist nor a photo analyst or even an expert on reptilian life only a big fan of life on Earth, both known and more so, unknown. But I have noticed in the first photo two things, first of which is this animal seems to have “Red eye” and I think that comes from something alive and second the second hump (third behind head) seems to be undulating for propulsion as known aquatic/land reptiles do. But bottom line need more data but keeping an open mind.

27. Loren Coleman responds: April 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm

    With all due respect to rcollins, part of what Cryptomundo is here for is to discuss breaking news and what is happening. I would rather “show” you what is being disseminated as new Lake Monster photos than place a hundred words here trying to explain them and tell you the story behind them. If something happens, we need to report it here, no matter what the final outcome is, because even the hoaxes impact cryptozoology.

28. coolzaidi786 responds: April 17th, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    Wow big E, i didnt even notice that red eye thing. And as for the photo, is the monster supposed to be moving or sitting still? Because I sure don’t seee any ripples being emitted from the monster if its moving.

29. ZenBug responds: April 17th, 2006 at 11:06 pm

    @saintly,

    The skepticism often displayed in this forum is a good thing, simply because logic would suggest that skeptics are right about this stuff (though they may not be).

    The thing in that photo doesn’t look like an anatomically correct animal to me…even for a cryptid. It just looks like a model. But not only does it look fake, it looks like a bad fake.

    I’m always amazed at how weak the hoaxes - or the photos that I deam to be hoaxes - end up being. Nowadays, it’s not that difficult to fake a cryptid photo if you have the right gear; I’ve faked cryptid photos myself for kicks, and although they’re not perfect, they’re okay for a few minutes’ work. Accordingly, I’d expect someone who really wanted to pull one over on the public to put some real work into it.

    So the real question is not why are there so many skeptics here, but why are the hoaxes always so poor?

    Incidentally, I agree that they look like Frank Searles’s 1972 Nessie Photos, and that’s because I’d say they’re fakes too.

    Hey by the way, are there any marine-cryptid photos that you folks believe are authentic?

30. smmoulder responds: April 17th, 2006 at 11:46 pm

    This is a fake.

    First, no one has ever shown why any creature would swim in a vertical looping motion that thrusts the neck/body out of the water. It simply makes no physical or biological sense for any creature to move in this way.

    Second, the water patterns/waves indicate that this is really quite a small object. I suspect a model set up for different photos with different amounts showing. the fixed angle of the head to neck and open mouth make this pretty clearly a non-living entity.

31. flickerbulbcom responds: April 18th, 2006 at 12:07 am

    it’s real.

    obviously.

32. shovethenos responds: April 18th, 2006 at 12:38 am

    What indicates a hoax to me is the fixed position of the figure. The head/neck and first hump are in the exact same positions in both pictures, in the second one the figure has just been placed lower in the water.

    Another fault is the anatomy - the figure seems to have a lower jaw longer than the upper jaw, and I really haven’t seen that configuration before, especially in what are usually viewed as the likely suspects to be surviving sea/lake monsters.

    “Nahuelito has shown his face” - I bet the guy nearly wet himself writing that.

    saintly-

    Regarding skepticism: A lot of the people that hang out at cryptozoology sites are skeptics. Some, like myself, believe that in some cases there is a high likelihood that something is actually out there, but realize there are a lot of hoaxsters and professional skeptics out there so any evidence must be thoroughly, objectively, and vigorously analyzed. This is to weed out the hoaxsters and beat the professional skeptics to the punch to hopefully, eventually arrive at some supportable conclusions about some of these situations.

    fuzzy-

    I agree with your general thoughts on Occam’s Razor, too often it is used as the “because I said so” refuge for bad theories and arguments, only with an additional veneer of scientific jargon.

    ZenBug-

    The Mansi photo of Champ is one that I have found pretty convincing. It was taken during the seventies and it pretty clearly shows the musculature in the twist of the creature’s neck. I don’t think that’s something that even a committed hoaxster would think of or be able to hoax, especially back then. That, taken together with the recent echolocation recordings, the footage that was taken last summer and obtained by Good Morning America, and the other footage that was taken a couple summers ago tend to indicate that there is a strong possibility that something is there.

33. eyeofnewt responds: April 18th, 2006 at 3:14 am

    To me, this resembles some of the lower-budget fakes from Loch Ness. If it’s legit, I’d want an explanation for the strange thickness of the creature’s underjaw, extending well back from the open mouth into the neck area. Looks like someone used too much clay while modeling–but it could be the biggest chin since Jay Leno.

34. bladezero responds: April 18th, 2006 at 3:44 am

    Come on people… If it is a real living creature then it is an anaconda or some type of modern day serpent. People photograph the serpents and feed to the whole legend. I can throw my baby Boa into my bathtub and get the same effect… ill call it NESSY !

35. Mr.Magoo responds: April 18th, 2006 at 5:19 am

    Notice the first and second hump, appears to be the same shape as an automobile tire and neither change shape as the monster drops down. Looks like it’s being pulled down, also the neck looks like a downspot from flexible tubing, and the head appears to be box shaped, and fastened with duct tape. Cheap looking monster, low budget antics.

36. hu6h responds: April 18th, 2006 at 8:29 am

    fuzzy, science doesn’t say bumblebees cant fly. and why would it? bumblebees do fly.

37. fuzzy responds: April 18th, 2006 at 8:41 am

    WhooOOoo! 36 entries so far! Haven’t had this much fun since Larry lost his lips!

    “Fascinating” (Spock) that every time we start at the top and read ‘em all the way down again, they interpret differently! Each new entry contains bits of truths, faults, opinions, theories, speculations, dogma and knee-jerk pontifications ~ and each colors the next, and the collected views color the whole.

    Above all, we must keep an open view, remembering that we cannot prove a negative, unless, like ZenBug #29, we are its creator!

    What great Blog!

38. ZenBug responds: April 18th, 2006 at 9:07 am

    @shovethenos,

    Yeah, that Champ photo is my top contenter too. That’s the one where it’s looking backward and you can see the sun gleaming off its neck, right?

    Although as I recall, the woman who took the photo claims she lost the negatives…and didn’t there appear to be a series of dots all over the image, as if it were on a TV screen? I thought that had raised some doubt about it at one time.

39. fuzzy responds: April 18th, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Interseting chain ~ my #22 bumblebee comment, then hu6h #posts a link to an article succinctly disproving it, and the link contains this comment: “In some sense, the story has done its share to inspire further research.”

    Ain’t that what it’s all about?

40. Benjamin Radford responds: April 18th, 2006 at 10:36 am

    With all due respect to Scott Corrales, this is typical of his “reporting,” which I have criticized in the past. Corrales does a real service in bringing otherwise less-accessible Spanish-language news stories to the table, but at the same time I believe he does a real disservice by making little or no effort to point out the many red flags (anonymous photographer, etc.)

    I don’t expect a skeptical report from Corrales, but real journalists bring some skepticism to the topic they cover, whether it’s politics or cryptozoology. They don’t simply uncritically repeat whatever is told to them. To use a political analogy, this is what Fox News does, simply repeating Bush administration press releases with little or no critical analysis.

    That said, of course this (almost certainly faked) photo deserves to be seen and discussed, as it is de facto part of the Nahuelito story, just as other faked and misidentified photos are part of other monster lore.

    ps. To all those who say you can’t prove a negative– of course you can! Somebody failed Logic 101. You just can’t prove a UNIVERSAL negative, which is not the same thing. For example, I can prove that Bigfoot does not exist in my office right now, or in my coffee cup.

41. jbolton responds: April 18th, 2006 at 11:10 am

    The undulating or spiraling shape of the “neck” is quite suggestive of the way a tree root grows in rocky soil. Dig up a root, throw it in the water - instant cryptid!

42. Redoubt responds: April 18th, 2006 at 11:30 am

    I can’t say that I’ve ever seen a real, living dinosaur or a Nessie-type sea serpent so I’m not sure that I could say what a real one should look like.

    But I have seen plenty of photos of bodies of water from various distances and how things like people and boats look in comparrison.

    My initial reaction is that it’s a fake with some obvious blending on the water around the target to disguise the effort.

    It has in common all the traits of a picture that wants to be something that it’s not.

43. anomalocaris responds: April 18th, 2006 at 11:50 am

    An obvious hoax. The images show a rigid model. in the lower photograph, the model is submerged more than in the upper photo to give the impression that the animal has lowered its head, but even casual examination shows that there has been no chage in the rigid shape & position of the head & “humps”

44. joe levit responds: April 18th, 2006 at 11:56 am

    I agree that it appears to be a model which has simply been positioned downwards in the second photo, but I am also intrigued by what looks to me like water dripping off the head in the second photo. I don’t see how that would be possible with a model.

45. gridbug responds: April 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Yeah, as much as I’m diggin’ the concept, these pics look a little too fakey to me. Not a bad job, but could’ve been so much better. And for the record, I agree with Loren’s position that the posting of such “maybe it is maybe it ain’t” photographic “evidence” is perfectly relevant on this site. Who better to help sort out the fact from the fiction than the ones with the open minds? More pleeze!

46. Jeremy_Wells responds: April 18th, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    re: #24 “saintly”

    Actually, what I see here is good, critical analysis of a photo. I believe in the possibility of undiscovered animals. That does NOT mean that I’m naive. I’d say the same goes for most crypto-afficianados.
    Go over to one of the “Skeptic” sites and my guess is you’ll see a lot more vitriol thrown about (especially towards anyone who might believe in the reality of said images)
    As for the zeal of saucer fanatics, it is comparing apples and oranges. I’m very interested in saucers and the abduction phenomenon, but there you often have a lot of people with almost religious zeal about the topic. The “believe” with deep faith, in something they have never seen and abduction scenarios are rife with religious overtones. But in any discussion of that, you have the zealots on either side ready to skewer you. Go in with an open mind and discussing the hard evidence such as burned rings and you are skewered by the skeptics as “gullible”. Talk about the similarities between so many accounts and other psycho-sexual phenomenon through the ages (incubi, changelings, etc.), the fact that scientist have triggered altered states similar to abduction phenomenon with electrical impulses, or anything other than the highly unlikely “little grey man from Alpha Centauri stuck a probe up my butt” and you are attacked with more venom than Pat Robertson directs at Democrats.
    Cryptozoologist, by and large, aren’t debunkers or zealots. They are seekers of the truth and I commend Loren and co. for hosting one of the few intelligent forums for such discussion on the web.

47. Ranatemporaria responds: April 18th, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    For those that may be interested, perhaps this is the kind of evidence were looking for- Anyone familiar with Muckie the muckrose lake monster from ireland? I know i wasnt before i stumbled upon this sonar evidence? What you think?

48. Benjamin Radford responds: April 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pm

    Jeremy Well wrote that:

    “Go over to one of the “Skeptic” sites and my guess is you’ll see a lot more vitriol thrown about (especially towards anyone who might believe in the reality of said images)”

    This is only one of many myths about skeptics; it’s amazing how often skeptics are accused of being closed-minded, dismissive, and hateful. That may be true in a few instances, but I think if people actually READ what the skeptics say, instead of ASSUMING they know what the skeptics say, they might be surprised at how cordial, respectful, and open-minded most skeptics are.

    There are hostile, dismissive, close-minded people on all sides of the issue.

49. Jeremy_Wells responds: April 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pm

    RE comment # 48
    Indeed, there are contentious people on all sides of an issue.
    This particualr comment was in regards to another comment about the folks commenting on this site being overly dismissive.
    I am not lumping all skeptics together as hateful and dismissive disciples of James Randi. In fact, I put myself in the camp of skeptic.
    What I was addressing was the polarization of opinions we often see on web-sites that cater to one group or another. It is easy, in those cases, for even jokes to get out of hand. After all, we are discussing things with the like-minded, right? Why not make a little fun of the “others”.
    If anything, what I was getting at is that one of the things I enjoy about this site is that I feel free to be an open minded critic, and when a photo is criticized, it seems to me it is done out of love for the field rather than the with the zeal one sees in a bullying child kicking over anothers sand castle.

50. Batgirl responds: April 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pm

    I think it’s pretty impressive. Especially the way the water comes out of the mouth. The creature is expelling water. I of fakes or models don’t even go the distance of making an open throat. And the second photo looks like the creature closed its mouth. Again, models and fakes rarely, if ever, are clever enough to have open and shut mouths.
    I think we need to give this one a closer look.
    I am not saying it’s genuine. But it is intriguing.

    BG

51. Marlantis Buzz responds: April 18th, 2006 at 5:19 pm

    POST # 19 continued…
    This page is now posted on the front page C2C web site today and so I’d like to say hi to the members of Imaginative Worlds Forum and the Fantastic Forum.

    Keep up the good work Loren.
    Marlantis Buzz

52. john5 responds: April 18th, 2006 at 7:17 pm

    When I first saw the pictures I was Amazed and then ‘too good to be true’ flashed through my thoughts. Upon a closer examination immediately I could see that the length of the creature twists to the right between the 1st and 2nd hump. After the 2nd hump the length appears to bend back toward the left (or more closely aligned with the center of the animals streamline!).

    This makes the more definitely serpent-like animal (rather than pleiseosaur-like) appear to writhe through the water for its propulsion at least at the water surface. The form of motion appears to be almost an undulating corkscrew-like movement through the water. Capturing this type of motion in a photograph is good fortune and would be difficult to do unless a photographer was within a reasonably close distance and slightly above the object or with a very good telephoto lens and steady hand or tripod.

    The watery area just behind the second hump and to the far side of the body gives the indication of movement. The disturbance caused by the submerged portion of the body (behind 2nd hump) sweeping back towards the middle of the animals center streamline can be plainly observed. The girth of the animals body decreases in this area as well. Visualizing the oddity in motion of a sidewinder rattlesnake seems to help me visualize this animals motion through the surface water.

    The 2nd photo appears closer than the first however the profile of the animals’ neck behind the head has appeared to have shifted. The head and neck have slightly stretched out to alter the angle of the head to neck by ~30 degrees. The enlarged throaty portion (pouch?)under the head is of interest. The 1st hump behind the head is now almost level with the head as the animal appears to be submerging. The distance between the head and the top of the first hump has increased compared to the first photo lending support to motion being caught on film. An S-mtion can de seen in the ripples of water behind the hump.

    With due respect to all other opinions expressed here Nauelito appears to be alive and well in these odd photograph in my humble opinion. I am an avid investigator of cryptozoology for more than 35 years and do my best not to jump to any conclusions. I was trained as a wildlife biologist in the early 80s and apply this scientific training to my investigations whatever they may be. However I do not hold the all too common scientific skepticism of the possibility of our earth being filled with rare, unique and cryptic lifeforms to be revealed.

53. john5 responds: April 18th, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    I apologize for the typos at the end of my above message and especially for mispelling ‘Nahuelito’. I meant to mention that I used a light-gauge wire twist tie to form out the shape of the animal overtop of the photograph to assist in visualization and angle measurements. Very helpful! As well I only used the two above photos for analysis and have no vested interest in these astonishing pics.

54. anomalocaris responds: April 18th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

    In response to the comments on there aren’t more “true believers” here, I would have to say that is to the site’s credit. Cryptozoology is a science, not a religion. There is no place in it for “true believers.” If folks want things taken on faith, rather than examined critically, there are any number of religions out there happy to take your money. The only way to identify new species is to examine the physical evidence and systematically rule out all other possible answers and all known species before deciding there is a new species to add to the books. Anything less is wishful thinking and poor science. It also makes it difficult for serious investigators to gain credibility, because for every serious investigator out there avoiding the media and focusing on the science of cryptozoology, there are two dozen wishful thinkers, believers and attention seekers showing up in the news, claiming to be cryptozoologists and giving the field a bad name. Harsh, but there you have it.

55. Redoubt responds: April 18th, 2006 at 9:44 pm

    Woe unto those of us who share a daring vision of a wonderful and mysterious universe! We are the lepers of science because our minds were not privileged enough to have been squeezed into a tuna can at birth!

    I appreciate even the most outlandish and seemingly impossible claim. I may not necessarily believe it… nor will I feel obliged to write something kind for the price of admission, but I’m still grateful for the chance to exercise my own judgment.

    Believers, non-believers, faithful and heretics…

    There are a lot of people who would gladly take the job of thinking for each of us… telling us what to believe, who to vote for, what to eat. Any time when there is a chance for us to observe and judge for ourselves on any subject, it is a good thing.

56. Harpo responds: April 18th, 2006 at 10:59 pm

    First I think it’s interesting that some people automatically think “hoax” just because whatever is in the picture is apparently small and close to shore -neither of these things should automatically disqualify a crypto picture from consideration. Secondly, for every “negative” thing I find in these pictures, I find a “positive” and vice-versa, which is sort of unusual. I should also mention that I’ve lived on a lake my whole life and have spent considerable time in and around water, which I think makes a big difference in evaluating “water” pictures. Some people just don’t have a lot of experience looking at things in the water and, while not done on purpose, miss or misconstrue certain things. An example of this is the Surgeon’s photo of Nessie. Anyone with experience around water who has seen the whole picture (not the common, cropped version) can tell that it was a very small object floating in the water, not a large moving object. As far as these pictures are concerned, the obvious “negatives” are 1) some unusual blur in parts of the first picture (possibly as a result of poor photoshopping); 2) pictures appear to be taken at different times of the day, even accounting for the photographer facing different directions for each; 3) Very similiar, possibly identical body position in both pictures. On the positive side, there does appear to be quite a bit of independent lateral motion in both pictures, which would be hard to create with a model. Although quite a bit of it in photo 1 is in the “possibly photoshopped” portions. A few people have commmented that animals don’t move thru the water that way (what I would call a vertical “sine wave” motion) I agree completely but I get the sense that rather than moving that way, whatever is in this picture is more “throwing” that second loop forward, toward the location of the camera, which would be a little more believable. The tail appears to be moving laterally. A few things I’ve gone back and forth on are the open mouth, the eye in #1 and the “neck pouch/frill” for lack of a better term. I’ve seen a lot of animals with this “open mouth” stance who were either sick or threatened (or I’m sure for other reasons) so I don’t think it should be discounted just for that reason. As for the “eye” in #1, could be reflection from the sun, could be camera “red eye” - whatever it is, it definitely adds to the perception of it being fake. The neck pouch/frill is interesting because certain lizards definitely have similiar features and it seems unlikely that a model maker would include one. The only other issue is that I too initially thought the head/neck and second hump were in identical position in both pictures but the more I look at them, the more I don’t think that they are - similiar but not identical. My final thought would be that #1 looks more fake, and possibly computer modified, while #2 appears to actually show something relatively small (30″ -48″)moving thru the water - but unable to determine whether it’s a model, an animal, or something else. Anyway, that’s my more than two cents worth.

57. youcantryreachingme responds: April 19th, 2006 at 3:21 am

    Inexplicata? Is that a real place? Did we all miss the joke by actually analyzing the image???

58. Marlantis Buzz responds: April 19th, 2006 at 6:47 am

    Well, YOUCANTRYREACHINGME, one could say this is either a Wild Goose Chase or a Canadian Wild Goose Chase…if I’ve figured it out right but I’ve got a few more other things to try next to make sure I’m not falling for the easy wild goose chase answer…can’t belive I’m spending time on this but you got me going now. Save me time if I’ve won the toaster by telling me…thanks Buzz.

59. youcantryreachingme responds: April 19th, 2006 at 7:00 am

    Foster’s? Ouch! You can’t be in Australia, surely??
    At a *very* casual glance, the tonal qualities between the two photos are totally different, which to me says “caution”.

    If I could examine the original image files, I’d happily do a more thorough analysis, but another “caution” is that the mouth is open in exactly the same way in both photos (read “a dummy or model”) and so is the body posture.

    I’d say it quite likely that there *is* something in the water (the reflections look realistic enough), but I’d say it’s an inanimate object being propped up.

    Now. I can’t believe I’ve given it that much time. To the fridge for a real beer - Cascade - after all, it’s got a couple of thylacines on it!
    Chris.

    Doh. Foster’s make that too, don’t they!?

60. blue flame responds: April 19th, 2006 at 8:06 am

    the problems i have with this photo are all pointed out above, what suggests this is a hoax to me is there are no ripples on the water or anything to suggest it was moving, the pictures are a little too perfect

61. Marlantis Buzz responds: April 19th, 2006 at 8:15 am

    Well, I’m beered out and holding a good Napa Valley Merlot. grinning at the effort involved here.

    Thanks for the friendly reply.

62. youcantryreachingme responds: April 19th, 2006 at 9:08 am

    saintly (24) does have a valid point. the cry for “fake” came thick and fast, yet the photos bear resemblance to the Searle photos of the Loch Ness monster - right down to the apparent nearness of the subject to the camera, small waves, small subject, etc… Who said a crypto had to be large? Why do we trust Searle’s photos? Mind you - it’s odd the same man snapped photos of both the Loch Ness monster and a UFO… Personally I don’t find the Searle photos convincing either
    As for smmoulder (30) and others who question an animal having their head that far out of water - Whales (killer, beluga, narwahl, pilot) do, although I’ll concede they’re not as slender as this thing.

    In fact, a pod of breaching whales can do a good job of resembling a cryptid creature.

    shovethenos (32) who has never seen a lower jaw longer than an upper jaw, really needs to check out some halfbeaks.

    And Mansi Champ photo? I’d never heard of it, but come on! Looks like a guy swimming freestyle - look at the shadows under the water - the left hand is visible out front, the (human’s) head is just to the side of the Champ’s head (and not where you’d expect a body to be if Champ was real), Champ’s “body” is the human hip and the trailing leg is also visible under the water. The “head” itself, it should be mentioned, is the swimmer’s arm; the upper arm is the dark portion at the bottom, it then bends at the elbow showing the forearm (near parallel to the water surface, and suitably lighted from above) with the hand bent backwards at the wrist and all fingers together (giving Champ’s “head”). Again, from the grasses in the foreground, the swimmer is not far offshore, and the size about matches a human swimmer….

    Shout me down - that’s what we’re all here for - but Champ doesn’t sell on me either
    Oh, and fuzzy (37) - Larry didn’t lose his lips; but he sure was scared of it!

    Apologies in advance if I’ve killed any of my links!

63. youcantryreachingme responds: April 19th, 2006 at 9:20 am

    Actually, this swimmer is just what I was talking about (Champ in 62). Just pretend his head was underwater and the photo was taken from the other side… Seriously!

    You know what they say - we’ll all see what we want to see!

64. youcantryreachingme responds: April 19th, 2006 at 9:29 am

    Weren’t convinced? Try this one.

    And now I really must give up.

65. sst responds: April 19th, 2006 at 10:46 am

    Some random thoughts…..

    Calling into question the size, shape and apparent swimming style do not prove or disprove authenticity and is not relevant when examining an unknown creature. That is like saying Sasquatch can’t have big human looking feet.

    In the first photo, the shadow from the neck would indicate that the photographer is facing the sun and that the time of day is after noon. There should not be red eye in the photo because the sun is shining on the other eye. In the second photo, the shadow from the neck looks like the sun is coming from the right and maybe even slightly behind the photographer and the time of day is midday. Now the animal could have turned 90 degrees in the water to create this anomaly but that would mean the photographer would have had to move to the other shore of the water, 90 degrees away since the shot is not head on. Also, it appears as though there are two shadows of the head in the second photo.

    There is no “order” indicated for the photos nor is there any indication that the photos were immediately successive which would easily explain the apparent lighting and time of day difference.

    Who still uses black and white film for taking snapshots, unless this is a very old photo?

66. lochsquatch responds: April 19th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Waves are too big
    Just like the famous pic of nessy.
    Looks about 4 feet long.
    Who knows how it would swim.
    You can’t really base anything on
    whether the mouth is open in both pics,
    or head in same position.
    Looks pretty fake to me, though,
    but who knows?

67. shovethenos responds: April 19th, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    youcan….-

    Thanks for posting the picture, I’ve never seen a half-beak before. But they aren’t the “usual suspects” for what surviving sea or lake monsters might be. They’re fish, therefore they wouldn’t be likely to hold their heads that far out of the water, have a long flexible neck, etc.

    I’m not convinced by the “swimmer” pics. They don’t agree with the eyewitness account - and within seconds you would be able to tell its a person swimming. The arm structure is off - “hand” seems more than a quarter of arm length, no defined “elbow”, the “elbow bend” seems to be in the middle of where most people’s upper arm would be, the “hand” seems to be awkwardly flexed for swimming, etc. Also, the whole appendage seems to be twisted to some degree - like its one flexible structure like a snakelike neck rather than fixed long bones with only three joints providing the flexibility.

    As far as the other dark objects that are under the water are concerned, it might be other parts of the same animal. (One of the prime suspects, tanystropheus, has a near-impossibly long, lanky neck, body, and tail.) It might also be another animal. (The video footage from 02 or 03 shows two animals together in an area of the lake that looks similar to the area where this was taken - a large, shallow area.)

    I haven’t gotten around to reading the Radford analysis of the picture, I’ll comment when I have read it.

68. joe levit responds: April 20th, 2006 at 10:25 am

    Yes, I have to say the Mansi photo looks nothing like a swimmer.

69. youcantryreachingme responds: April 20th, 2006 at 6:35 pm

    To all - Craig posted a new thread dedicated to discussing the Mansi Champ photo; hop on over to continue the debate.

70. Marlantis Buzz responds: April 20th, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    All I have to say is SERPENT ….

    youcantryreachingme pretty much sums it up.

    Now back to our regular programming…

71. Mnynames responds: April 20th, 2006 at 10:31 pm

    Nice to see the Surgeon is still snapping photos almost a century later…

    70+ comments in, I imagine it’s already been said in one way or another, but to those who say that they shouldn’t post such obvious fakes here, it seems to me that someone would only make a comment about them anyway, which would lead to an explanation. Whether it is true or not, it IS news, and worthy of discussion, even if it is derision.

    And as for the whole skeptic-believer issue, I think that those interested in cryptozoology do tend to be a tad more…let’s say analytical, rather than skeptical. I myself have posted comments suggesting ways that certain incidents might have been faked, even though I am persuaded that they are genuine. I think that, rather than belief, many that post here operate under a suspension-of-belief, prefering to look at a topic from many different angles and possibilities.

72. SCorrales responds: May 4th, 2006 at 5:15 am

    The report from the Bariloche newspaper was just that–a newspaper article with uncredited photographs, not a declaration of the existence of an unknown lacustrine creature. Information like this–strictly from journalistic sources–is provided to Inexplicata on a daily basis by its network of correspondents, and it is submitted for the consideration of the Internet reading audience (uncritically, as Mr. Radford might point out)for purposes of information only. No other representation is made nor implied, and the same goes for the UFO information we provide. If anyone felt that the news item and photos were meant to suggest “finally! we have proof!” I’m afraid they were misled.

73. Loren Coleman responds: May 4th, 2006 at 5:43 am

    Scott Corrales’s information dissemination is extremely appreciated here. His opening of the door to Hispanic America has been a godsend for trying to get news from a formerly routinely inaccessible but important and growing population of folks with a rising interest in cryptozoology. Thanks to Scott Corrales for the gateway.

    What people do with the information, and what it pans out to be is not anyone’s blame. Let us not kill the messenger.

74. john5 responds: May 6th, 2006 at 9:32 pm

    It is obvious that many negative comments on the photos of this animal are made by people who are not very familiar with the actions of water and dimensions of waves & ripples. Having spent much time on and around rivers, Georgian Bay, Lake Erie and Huron, as well as the Gulf of Mexico I am very familiar with water motions and can plainly see that the ripples around the animal and in the background are not tiny (the animal is not a stick!.

    There is a large long ripple that is running parallel several feet behind the animal in the first photo. This ripple must be at least 4-6 inches high, possibly a wake from a distance water craft!? The first hump would therefore measure ~2+ feet above the water. The curious ripple in the foreground of the picture suggests a location close to a shoreline given the irregularity. This would be a location where many other giant eel-like animals are frequently observed (landlubbards!).

    The foreground of the second picture showsa rather wide, shallow swell that runs parallel to the animal, almost as if the water here is gathering against a shoreline. The swell must be several feet across front to back to give a scale for the animal.

    Does anyone else see in the first photo that the length of the animal is offset side to side like a snake that slithers side to side in a 2 dimension fashion. However unlike a snake this water animal appears to also use the third dimension of up and down as well as back and forth in its locomotion. Weaving itself through the surface of the water. It is the first picture capturing this historically typical view of a sea serpent and its bizarre locomotion that caught my immediate attention and appreciation.

    There are more details in the pictures that speak of a real animal than any details that speak of a fabrication (see comments 52 & 53). No one has found contridications with my previous posts and that in itself is of great interest.

    Peace

75. Albert Mond responds: May 7th, 2006 at 2:24 pm

    Interesting. Very interesting. Finally… SOME picture of it.

76. sasquatch responds: May 7th, 2006 at 8:25 pm

    I haven’t looked at these pictures in a few weeks and just now noticed that contrary to what some said about it being in the “exact” same position, just lower in the water; I’d have to disagree. It looks to me that the first hump is farther away from the camera than in the second picture. The second picture seems to have the first hump totally in line with the head/neck, while the first shot shows the first hump and head/neck not at all aligned as in a straight profile like the second. -hard to explain, but I’m starting to lean toward the REAL explanation on this.

77. Redoubt responds: May 7th, 2006 at 9:00 pm

    I suppose it could be a sea serpent… though the images are not like-sized and there is some good degree of variation in texture and lighting. My personal interpretation is that there is not enough resolution or consistency to form a firm opinion.

    But just for fun, I thought I’d show them around some…

    To help refine the process, I first took copies to an acquaintance at Bubba’s Transmission Repair and Barbecue… and he said they looked like jumper cables.

    From there, I shared the photos with one of my son’s friends… his name is Lenny. He is a junior at the local high school and his impression was that it looked like an electric plug on the end of a cord.

    Finally, I looked up an old buddy of mine from the 1960s. His name is Ratso… he used to be a junkie… until he got religion and now he’s a priest for the Church of the Divine Lady in the Mist, which has its headquarters in an old school bus just outside of Statesboro, Georgia. His main thing these days is growing mushrooms. He likes the pics and said he’s gonna do a blow up of them for Friday night services because whatever it is, they would probably look good under a black light.

    I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder…

78. john5 responds: May 8th, 2006 at 7:00 am

    Sarcasm does not make the pictures fake and simply calling them fake does not make them fake. There is far more detail in the first picture than in many other ’sea serpent’ pictures and videos and yet there is surprisingly little mentioned about this fact. Maybe most people are too unnerved by the possible existence of the animals blinding them to any proof-positive detail in the photos.
    Peace

79. Redoubt responds: May 8th, 2006 at 11:49 am

    Actually, no sarcasm at all… just an attempt at some humor with my fellow posters here at the Crypto Board… and I really did share the photos with some outside acquaintances… I just took some liberties in retelling their stories.

    You know, it takes an open mind to even consider some of the subject matter here… and that is a good thing because closed minds get lost easily in open spaces.

    But at the same time, if we can’t laugh at ourselves and our subject matter just a little… well, then we just look like an asylum full of cranky eccentrics, is all.

    Anyway, if anyone was offended, I do apologize.

    (Personally, I’m a big fan of Nessie and the variety of similarly strange critters worldwide.)

    -Redoubt

80. john5 responds: May 9th, 2006 at 12:43 am

    Thanks for your words Redoubt. I made a comment about sarcasm in a previous post as the topic of cryptozoology has long drawn sarcastic retorts from the very scientists (people) who should be involved in the serious research this interesting field requires. Jokes come easy but the proof takes work, effort and thought. Sadly Redoubt comments about these Nahualito pictures were largely from a sarcastic angle and without an obvious attention to the details provided (at least on my little computer screen).

    I also apologize for a somewhat cranky attitude toward an abundance of humour based scoffing throughout this posting. One definitely needs a sense of humour to live a healthy life here on earth and to be involved in cryptozoology. To be able to laugh at one’s self is another important trait to develop, especially if photos, etc of some rare animal or plant that are thought to be real turn out to be a fraud. No one wants to be the butt of a prank. This is why I debated a while before giving my opinion on these photos. What I see clearly in the first photo overrides any fear of it being a fraud.

    Peace on the Path and Happy Sightings

81. josh W. responds: May 24th, 2006 at 7:48 pm

    This photo is EXTREMELY sketchy. the water and the creature look like some kind of movie prop.

82. shumway10973 responds: July 4th, 2006 at 11:09 am

    I don’t need other objects to see that these are fakes. In the first one look at how close the water is to the camera and how small it is. besides the facial feature remindes me of the jabberwocky. the natural waves of the lake are bigger than anything around the creature. Something of its reported size would be causing wakes like a boat.

83. youcantryreachingme responds: July 4th, 2006 at 11:29 pm

    Redoubt (79) said “closed minds get lost easily in open spaces”. Is that an original? Can I quote it? It would make a great email signature!
    By the way - the original post mentioned three photographs, but we have only two. Loren - could you please clarify whether we can view the third photo, etc?

    Thanks.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|