I am obviously talking about the mainstream scientists who did review the Patterson-Gimlin film, when it was first made public. (A roomful of them got a special showing.) No need to address anyone in the categories you cite; I’m talking about the ones who were there, and who deep-sixed it – as later technical reviews of the film have made clear – without analysis. As well as all those who have succeeded them in the same ‘approach.’

And I take especial issue – and always have – with this assertion: “The burden of proof is on the one submitting evidence, not the one questioning it.”

That’s not right. At the very least, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

The person submitting the evidence has just that, the evidence submitted. The burden, in reviewing the evidence, is on the scientist reviewing it to justify – using his techncial expertise – any position he *publicly takes upon it.* To allow anything else is to allow scientists to hide behind their degrees and the naivete of the public to wholesale call people fakers and liars. This is just about the most destructive thing scientists can do to science.

Patterson did exactly what he had to do. He went out there, got the evidence, and submitted it – as anyone in his situation *must* do – for analysis by a candid world. He’s done. It is now up to science. Which failed the public – with a few fortunate exceptions – by not properly taking on the burden of technical analysis of the evidence.

We will never accept anything as proof of a cryptid short of scientific verification. Laymen, regardless their qualifications or care for the evidence, won’t cut it for us. Patty has made that more than painfully obvious. It is incumbent on scientists to, if they insist on opening their big mouths on the evidence, to say why they believe what they do. In the case of Patty, there has never been a skeptical analysis of this film. I defy anyone to find one. (No, David Daegling’s doesn’t count. He does everything – including name-call – *but* analyze the film. Napier’s doesn’t count either. It isn’t analysis; it’s unfounded supposition regarding things he personally wasn’t comfortable with.) I have not seen a skeptical ‘analysis’ of Patty that I couldn’t tear to shreds, on the merits, and I’m not even a scientist.

Mystery_man brought his experience and scientific expertise to bear on this latest “Champ.” He didn’t pronounce a conclusion – which would be hard, nay impossible, to do here – but noted carefully why known species aren’t a slam dunk and why a prank would be very hard to accomplish. With few exceptions, the scientists who have expressed opinions on Patty have shot from the hip, discarding their science to behave like ignorant laymen; the few that have not have said no worse about it than “inconclusive” (where even Daegling came to rest).

You can withhold judgment on a cryptid film. You can say “I don’t know what that is.” You can decline an opinion based on insufficient evidence for you. But to say you know – based on nothing more than a look – that it’s fake brands you an unschooled cynic. Or, if you’re “positive,” a True Believer. Neither stance does service to science.

When I look at alleged-cryptid videos on this site, I apply everything I know about animals and the natural world. Which, for a non-scientist, is a lot; and is much more than backs any “negative nancy” opinion I ever heard from a scientist who hasn’t done his homework.

Most people may not know when that’s happened. But I do; I call them on it; and I demand better from them. As we all should; it’s their job, after all, to apply what they know. If they don’t want to do that, they should just keep quiet and spare the rest of us their personal contribution to global warming.

That was an experiment. I knew you’d be checking in. So I wanted to see what a mainstream scientist, applying his experience and knowledge to a cryptid video, would say to a standard-issue scoftical debunk.

THAT’s how one should sound when responding to a standard-issue scoftical debunk.

OK. For the scoftical mainstream scientists among you, I have just this one question.

Why didn’t you do this with the Patterson-Gimlin film?

CLASS DISMISSED.

Thanks, m_m!

(You still think I’m kidding.)

Yes, this has been answered here in the articles and blog writings. Eric Olsen waited for over a half-hour to see if he could see anything coming out on shore. Nothing did.

Please review all the recent “Champ video” postings and the comments for answers to other questions.

Nevertheless, questions are welcome.

Anyway, I remember at first I said it could be a dog (I said it COULD be, but not my full belief) But now looking at the enhanced videos, I honestly can’t think of any known critter it could be. At least from the video of course I gotta say this is very impressive footage. We may very well be seeing an unknown animal.
No way to be sure at this point. But that’s half the fun!

I think this new footage is great because it has really sparked a grand dialogue. I am a staunch believer in “Champ” because I saw him/her 11 years ago late on an August Afternoon. I was about 30 feet off of the south end of North Beach in Burlington in my kayak and the creature was about 50-60 feet away in deeper water. It was at least 20 or more feet long, and its head was supported on a long slender neck about 5 feet above the level of the water. there was a pronounced hump rising above the water about 8 feet behind where the neck disappeared into the water, and a tail was evident no less than 10 feet behind the back of the hump, which cleared the water enough where I could see the shore of New York between it and the water. It was back-lit by the sunlight, so I can’t comment on the color, skin, etc, but I was floating there, it turned its head toward me and we sat and just stared at each other for what seemed like an hour but was more likely to have been just 30 or 40 seconds. It arched its neck forward, dipping its head into the water, creating the double arch that others have reported. it then turned toward deeper water, the body elongating and then in a very snakelike way whipped itself away, submerging after a short distance (less than 30 feet or so). The entire time we floated watching each other, it was in profile, so I feel confidant about my estimates of size and shape.
I was excited to watch this video, but I can safely say that this animal is not the one i saw… It could be a young offspring, perhaps, but it didn’t move the way that the one I saw moved. I am certainly no expert, but my vote is either that this is a immature offspring of the creature I saw, or another unknown mysterious creature that Lake Champlain has decided to share with us!

A moose? The head is too small to be a known moose.

My best theory is Champ, unknown Champ or unknown/known turtle.