| User | Post |
|
11:39 am
June 7, 2009
|
Revenant
Lead Investigator
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
|
| posts 933 |
|
|
A bit more food for thought on Champ and his past:
http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-07/monster.html
|
|
|
12:14 pm
June 7, 2009
|
alicat
Lead Investigator
| | | |
|
| posts 1214 |
|
|
Thanks for the link Revenant. I've never really looked into the history other than watching specials I've seen on tv which included the search for Champ. There is a real cottage industry that has sprouted around this legend.
I still think the other photo from Olsen is a moose and I would really like to believe this woman took a photo of Champ but, like the surgeon's photo of Nessie which was finally revealed to be a hoax, this appears also to be a fake. One of many obvious reasons was the fact that the woman threw away the negatives. You have to believe that if you saw something of that nature and took a picture of it, you would have been shouting to the heavens and produced every bit of evidence to prove you were telling the truth. No one would ever throw away the negatives - ever. Also, they say it would have been expensive to build. Not really. The surgeon who produced the Nessie photograph spent very little money and it was almost embarassing to everyone when they finally were shown how it was done. So, although I would like to think this woman and her fiancee were telling the truth, I have no doubt it's a hoax and she was looking for that 15 minutes of fame. There are a lot of wrecks in Lake Champlain where animals can hide but not of that size and, unlike Loch Ness, this is a park and a vacation destination visited by so many. Loch Ness however is steeped in peat and other substances from the farmland and hills around the Loch. Put your hand in the water there and you cannot see it. The chances of finding a Champ are so increased by the numbers of visitors as opposed to the small town of Inverness and it's surroundings. Yes, people do visit Loch Ness and Inverness but it's not a location that is a vacation destination like Lake Champlain and people do not flock there in droves. Despite the rainy weather, it is a beautiful place to visit but it you really have to go quite out of your way to get there. I doubt many people would want to ride on Scot Rail for that long a period of time even with the beautiful scenery. It's farm, sheep, farm, cow, farm, farm, cow, sheep …….
|
|
|
|
|
Loren Coleman recently visited the apparent "film site" and suprisingly(or not) didn't really determine much.
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/champ-crunch/
Rather than…you know…do something helpful, like get a boat and measure the distance to the buoy from where the filmer was standing…all he came away with is that 'the buoy is closer than it appears in the film'. Oh, and breaking his foot.
The real gem of this is in the comments. Someone asks:
"Did you take any quality photos, despicting the same view as was in the original video, including the bouy and objects in the background?"
Loren responded:
"I took some photos with film that will be published in print form, not via this blog. I do not own a digital camera."
Really? For someone who maintains a fairly popular online blog, that's really amusing. Almost as amusing that despite his lack of a digital camera, we're treated to a handful of pictures of him at the site and of his broken foot.
Go figure.
|
|
|
|
|
correction: My reading comprehension is at an all time low.
It's not his foot, but the other pictures of him on location still stand.
|
|
|
10:32 pm
July 1, 2009
|
Revenant
Lead Investigator
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
|
| posts 933 |
|
|
Hmmm…thanks for posting this.
And you're right, the real gem is that comment and Mr. Coleman's reply. How does a cryptozoologist not own a digital camera? Don't you think he'd own 29 different types of cameras, lenses, camera traps, etc? It is quite odd.
And actually, here's another from the article itself:
"I journeyed over to Lake Champlain last week. Part of my time was spent being recorded by Comcast out of Philadelphia. They interviewed me for forthcoming programs in their series “American Monsters,” to be shown on their “Comcast-On-Demand” cable selection option. I discussed the Lake Champlain Monsters. Following that, I shared info on cryptozoology in general and Bigfoot."
Then the article kind of describes how the area is somewhat smaller than first thought. And then ends with:
"I’m still not saying I know what was digitally captured by Eric Olsen’s phonecam, but it is not as large as it looks. That it may be an otter remains a real possibility, all joking aside."
Ok…so…He doesn't know what it is exactly, no one does, but he's leaning towards an otter. Fine…yet, he has absolutely no problem discussing the Lake Champlain Monsters with Comcast. Not "supposed" Lake Champlain Monsters. Not "possible" Lake Champlain Monsters…but THE Lake Champlain Monsters. So let me ask…if the Olsen film is the best evidence ever seen on Champ and he is kind of leaning towards the otter theory…what evidence do we have of those Lake Champlain Monsters again? Is he going back to that 1977 Mansi photograph for evidence? Seriously?
Yes, there is the possibility that the creature in the Olsen film is an unknown creature. Yet, if you personally think that it is most likely an otter, then why jump in front of a camera and start talking about monsters? Isn't that sort of, kind of…oh, I don't know…self-serving and self-promoting? And one of the reasons why cryptozoology is at the bottom of the barrel and will never be viewed as an actual science?
|
|
|
|
|
Totally.
It's just maddening to me someone that makes his living as a "crytpozoologist" so willinginly and knowlingly sets himself up as a buffon. At least the GH guys sell and buy into their BS.
|
|
|
6:07 am
July 2, 2009
|
alicat
Lead Investigator
| | | |
|
| posts 1214 |
|
|
Thanks for the link.
I too am surprised Coleman doesn't own a digital camera but perhaps now he should buy one with the money he's getting from Comcast to be interviewed about monsters and Champ. I'll have to keep checking Comcast to see when it's airing.
Revenant, I'm with you. If he's going back to the Manzi photo, he's drawing from a dry well on that one.
"And one of the reasons why cryptozoology is at the bottom of the barrel and will never be viewed as an actual science." Are you saying here that putting cryptozoologist on my resume would not be viewed as a positive? 
|
|
|
11:42 am
July 2, 2009
|
Revenant
Lead Investigator
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
|
| posts 933 |
|
|
alicat said:
"And one of the reasons why cryptozoology is at the bottom of the barrel and will never be viewed as an actual science." Are you saying here that putting cryptozoologist on my resume would not be viewed as a positive? 
It depends. If your future employer is into the "wonder of the universe and all that it contains" and is open to any and all possibilities, no matter how outlandish, then sure, go ahead. However, if the job that you are trying to get has anything to do with science…um, yeah…I might leave that off the resume. 
|
|
Login
Register
Forums
Add a New Topic
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply
Topic RSS 