After looking at this video, I have to say it probably is a young moose (calf).  The tide plus the ripples/waves and the fact that they had a lot of rain which would swell the lake make the most sense for the video.  Three interesting things to point out are the time of day this was taken, there are no reference points to judge size and why does the video stop where it does?  If this individual was watching this enough to tape it, why not until it disappeared or came out of the water?

I'd love to believe it is something more and I've been to Loch Ness where one can get away with it due to such a remote area.  Because of my interest in Loch Ness, I'd love to believe there is something in Lake Champlain.

However, if this animal was swimming in distress, that would account for the extended wake to a degree.  That, combined with the tide and the way the light plays with the waves/ripples, would also account for it looking much larger than a moose.  I think the fact that it had rained and the Lake had become swollen accounts for a lot as well.  If you notice when it goes across the water all of a sudden it submerges and comes back up longer and larger.  Walking across the floor of the lake or swimming and then being able to stand on a sand bar would explain a lot.  The Chesapeake is famous for that.  You can anchor out close to shore at some points, go in the water and then walk (in what appears to be deep water) to sit on the shore and sun yourself on the beach.  It's really not that unusual.

Edit:  Check out this link:  http://www.nhptv.org/NatureWorks/moose.htm

Just to side-track just for a moment…

I read the article that comes along with the clip (thanks Leslie).  This caught my eye:

"Joe Nickell, a cryptozoologist in Amherst, N.Y., says his best guess is that the object was a moose calf.” ~ NECN

Mr. Nickel, of course, is hardly a cryptozoologist.

It is widely acknowledged that Nickel is a former stage magician and a prominent skeptical investigator of the “paranormal” (which to Nickel includes cryptozoology). He is a member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and a writer for Skeptic Inquirer."

Knowing a little about Joe Nickell, this made me laugh.  Why would he call himself that?  Well, why not?  Let's take a look at an article called "20 Questions With Loren Coleman" at Mr. Coleman's very own website:

http://lorencoleman.com/loren_coleman_7.html

"2. Is there any way to prepare for the job? Does it have good benefits? Do you put "cryptozoologist" in the space for profession on your tax return?

"Cryptozoologists" do not have a formal job description, per se. Various educational backgrounds (anthropology, linguistics, zoology, biology, etc.) are helpful, and other trainings go into making one a cryptozoologist. I teach at a university, consult, research, and write. I believe my accountant puts "professor/author" on tax forms."

So….really….anyone can call themselves a cryptozoologist then?  Just not Joe Nickell…

I've got nothing against Loren Coleman.  Seems like a nice person and I've enjoyed reading many of the things that he's written.  It just so happens that I disagree with him on some points…like this one.

Oh…and by way…since I'm in a good mood today…anyone who has posted in this thread or does so after this post…is now a cryptozoologist!  Be sure to update your resumes…

alicat said:

After looking at this video, I have to say it probably is a young moose (calf).  The tide plus the ripples/waves and the fact that they had a lot of rain which would swell the lake make the most sense for the video.  Three interesting things to point out are the time of day this was taken, there are no reference points to judge size and why does the video stop where it does?  If this individual was watching this enough to tape it, why not until it disappeared or came out of the water?

I finally had a chance to look at all the video.  Alicat, I agree with your three points.  I thought the same exact things.  Especially the last one…why does the film end when, whatever it is, is so close to the shore?

I have to admit, the first thing I thought of was a beaver.  I know, I know.  But an older beaver can get up to 100 lbs and over 4 feet long.  And since there's no reference point for size, I can't tell how big the animal really is.  And I also thought that the beaver's powerful tail, under the water, might be able to produce that odd wave behind it. 

Many people seem to like the moose theory.  I can see it.  But I can't see any ears in the video's.  Don't moose have pretty big ears?  Maybe they're just pinned back?

Overall, I'm just not sure.  It is interesting…

EDIT:  Ok, I just used the links in this thread.  I didn't know more video had become available.  Check out the 28 second black and white video near the bottom:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/oslen1wkd/

I guess others have guessed beaver or otter too.  I don't know much about otters, so I'm sticking with the beaver. 

Nosfer said:

I have not seen many otters swimming, but I've seen a LOT of beaver and not one of them has swum with it's head out of the water like that.

---

Perhaps the beaver has a bad back and is forced to swim that way…

Cool pictures by the way.  Thanks for showing them. 

Beaver, otter, moose, dog, deer, log or something more…exotic…it's just hard to tell.  Looking at supposed "lake monster" footage is extremely difficult.  We need distance, depth, current, a look at the bottom of the lake in that area for lay-out and obstructions, etc.  The list just goes on. 

Whatever it is that we're looking at, I must say, I find this infinitely more intriguing than that supposedly old 8mm film of Bigfoot in the cornfield.

And at the very least, the topic has exposed my utter lack of knowledge concerning otters.  I'll have to start studying up on them…  

Nosfer said:

LOL, I hear you on the otters! What I find most disappointing (and somewhat suspicious) about the footage is where it ends. I suppose his camera phone ran out of memory at that point, but it would seem rather convenient. There was one post on the site about it not being an animal that was in trouble and I agree with that. There would be a LOT more thrashing around if it was.

Agreed.  I really don't like where the film clip stopped so close to the shore.

And reading some of the articles over at Cryptomundo, they keep going on about how the guy who shot the film clip is "over-whelmed" and has gone into hiding.  Seriously?  It's 2009.  You post a film clip of a supposed lake monster and guess what?  It's going to be all over the news and tons of people will be after you for all sorts of information.  To think otherwise is simply childish.  You post it, you live with it.  Stand up and answer the questions!  Get it over with.  Going into hiding makes things worse.