If you check into descriptions of eyewitnesses to lake monsters around the world in many different lakes, very the description includes a horse-like head, something you would not expect of a serpent. You will also find descriptions of curling serpentine loops or “humps” in the water, a likely feature of coiled serpentine aquatic movement.

It is entirely possible that when we finally obtain a sample of these aquatic creatures it will be a better match for mythological dragons than for dinosaurs.

Cheers

(And thanks John for the updates and info.)

However, in light of recent higher profile hoaxes like the Sonoma bigfoot video engineered by Penn and Teller, and the Georgia bigfoot costume and guts in a cooler, we’ve all become more wary of any new announcement.

Since I’m a 3DCG artist myself, allow me to postulate how a hoax like this could be created. I’m not saying it is a hoax. I’m just postulating how a hoax of this type could be accomplished.

First, as any good magician will tell you, there needs to be an accomplice. You always have an assistant who can play the part of the seemingly honest person who appears to be a believer, but is secretly in on the gag. I don’t know these fishermen, but in a scenario like this they would be the people who seem honest, but pull off the confidence trick of fooling the mark with their sincere amazement.

Second, you need the “evidence” in the form of a video. With modern CG technology, I have to be honest and tell you that there are 3DCG artists who are more than capable of fooling you if they want to. Not all of them are quite this good, but they are out there, and the technology is not nearly as expensive as their skills and time. The computers used to do this kind of work no longer need to be very impressive compared to the typical home computer. 3DCG software like 3D Studio Max, Maya, Modo, Softimage, Blender, etc. can be rigged up with photorealistic renderers, and I don’t think a cadborosaurus model would be very difficult to model, texture, animate, and blend into video with tracking software at this point.

I’m not saying that’s what has happened here. I’m just making it clear that this is entirely possible now with current technology that anyone can buy and learn to use.

I’m hoping the video is real. It will surely be thrilling to watch. I just have to hold onto some skepticism until I see it for myself.

Inquiring minds need to know…

Maybe I’m overthinking this, but Mr. Kirk has not posted that the cryptid in question “lifted its head clear of the water.” In fact, he never suggests at anytime that the footage shows a classic posture for Caddy, i.e., head above water, with long neck. This is important because Mr. Kirk seems to be saying the cryptid’s head is seen and it resembles the Naden Harbour dead beast’s camel-like head. If the cryptid’s head was not above water, but at water level or just below the surface, then its resemblance to the Naden Harbour animal would be necessarily tempered by the elements (especially, given the fact that the comparison, the Naden Harbour carcass, is out of water and seen only in profile).

Like I said, maybe I’m overthinking Mr. Kirk’s comments. Anyway, this seems on the surface (pun intended) to be a very promising cryptozoological development.

According to Darren Naish’s site, Tetrapod Zoology (Sept. 02, 2006), Bousfield and LeBlond formally described the Naden Harbour carcass as a new species in a supplement to the science journal Amphipacifica and “proposed that Cadborosaurus might represent a surviving plesiosaur” because “(on p. 8 it is classified as ‘Class Reptilia, Subclass Euryapsida?, Order Pleiosauria?’)”. Perhaps we should note the question marks.

In their book CADBOROSAURUS: SURVIVOR from the DEEP, LeBlond and Bousfield, in a chapter titled “What Is Caddy”, suggest that the Naden Harbour carcass and various eyewitness accounts imply: “Overall, Caddy ranks most closely with marine saurischian (plesiosaurs) or thalattosuchian (marine crocodilians) reptiles and marine mammals…” (p.82). They seem to conclude on the following page that Cadborosaurus is “perhaps most closely related” to early marine crocodilians.

As to the identity of the Naden Harbour carcass, all I really suggest is that we cannot determine if it represents a cryptid or a known animal under obscuring circumstances. Some have put forth the ever present “usual suspect,” a decayed basking shark, as the explanation for the carcass. It is worth noting that the director of Provincial Museum in Victoria, in July of 1937, was quoted as saying “there was little doubt that the portion of a backbone, the piece of baleen and the portion of skin forwarded to the museum were pieces of a baleen whale, which he believed was of premature birth.” (p. 56 of L. and B.’s book).

Mr. Kirk states again that the head of one of the cryptids in the new footage looks very much like the head of the Naden Harbour carcass. MattBille states that Mr. Kirk describes the cryptid as lifting its head above the water and looking towards the camera. Perhaps I should reread Mr. Kirk’s original post again, because I don’t remember any comment suggesting the animal in the footage lifted its head out of water, Caddy like. Of course, if it did, that fact would seem to disallow fish as a solution to this mystery. If it didn’t so elevate its head, I must ask again how it is possible to assume an affinity with the Naden Harbour carcass head, which is known only in profile.

My primary concern is that the apparent cryptids in the new footage are being conflated with the legendary Cadborosaurus, unnecessarily.

As a fact, a lot of the stuff that runs across this site falls into those categories, with only a minimal number of actual sightings and footage applicable to our cause. That’s simply because of all of the misidentifications, hoaxing, and genuine excited people who end up involved in cryptozoology. As Loren and Craig and the others have tried to point out on this site, you have to sift through a lot of mundane, and weed out the crap in order to uncover the real gems of information.

We all get frustrated when someone thinks they’ve got the video or find of the century and it turns out to be a sturgeon or a bear…or a guy in a parka at extreme range…or worse, a few idiots with a bathtub and a suit. It’s easy to become jaded and to assume that everything coming in is going to be nothing or hoaxers or some misidentification. And it’s hard not to ASSume everything is a fake or a blob after you wade through a hundred false leads.

Like I said, I get frustrated too…when we get a piece of evidence and it turns out to be either so vague as to be of no value or a fake because someone has nothing better to do with their time, I have my favorite catch phrases and four letter words.

However, part of being a true skeptic is not making a hip shot and jumping to a conclusion without some investigation and as many facts as you can get. Immediately denouncing an encounter or footage is just as irresponsible as jumping up and down and getting out your checkbook to buy the suit in the bathtub.

That’s what this site and its contributors have been teaching us over the course of Cryptomundo’s existence.

Sure, we’d all love to get the carcass in hand, or the definitive proof that our favorite cryptids are out there and indisputable. However, until that day arrives we sift through the evidence as we get it and make heads or tails of it.

AND, it’s the one piece of footage, sighting or encounter that is of value that makes it worth wading through all of the other garbage and keeps me on the hunt. And returning to Cryptomundo day after day.

So, I will say again. I’m excited about this footage–and with John Kirk and Dr. LeBlond already having a first hand look at it, AND the fact that they’re excited about it, gives me more reason to be excited.

However, I’m not dooming it or buying into it until I get a look at the footage for myself. I’m skeptical without making a judgement before I know what’s going on.

So, bring it on…I want to see what those fishermen caught on film!

I can definitely see the point of view that scientific discoveries don’t normally play out this way. If it was genuine there would be a buzz and excitement pulsing through the scientific community the likes of which many of us would not have seen in our lifetime.view from where I stand. DC is in the business of selling TV programs, they need entertaining content to be able to do this. Note that I say “entertaining” it doesn’t have to be scientific.

I can definitely see the point of view that scientific discoveries don’t normally play out this way. If it was genuine there would be a buzz and excitement pulsing through the scientific community the likes of which many of us would not have seen in our lifetime. can see both points of view from where I stand. DC is in the business of selling TV programs, they need entertaining content to be able to do this. Note that I say “entertaining” it doesn’t have to be scientific.

I can definitely see the point of view that scientific discoveries don’t normally play out this way. If it was genuine there would be a buzz and excitement pulsing through the scientific community the likes of which many of us would not have seen in our lifetime.

I do agree that we must wait to see the footage to make up our own minds. Perhaps DC have scored a real scoop here and are going to break something truly amazing in an unconventional fashion, i.e through the entertainment industry rather than through the scientific community.

Also it is really unfair to essentially label Mr Kirk a liar. Sounds like a chap any of us would like to have a beer with.