The cryptozoological world is aflutter about new video of the alleged monster in Lake Champlain. Loren Coleman of Crytomundo fame is positively gloating, and why shouldn’t he? Most of the time he makes a claim about some cryptid all he can point at are widely diverse eyewitness reports and pictures that could be of anything. Hell, recently he mistook a kite for Ogopogo. But in this case the film clearly shows some sort of animal, so it’s much better than the usual cryptozoological evidence.
Sadly for the cryptozoologists, the animal is almost certainly a deer. The deer is walking along the bottom at the beginning of the clip, and as it gets deeper you can see it struggling to keep its head above water. Not behavior we’d expect from an aquatic animal. Unmentioned even in the good skeptical analyses I’ve seen of this clip, cell phone cameras tend to make objects look much farther away than they really are (a combination of a wide angle lens and low resolution, I think, but I’m not an expert on camera optics), so I suspect the deer started out quite close to the guy who recorded it, so he’s probably fibbing in his description when he says he didn’t know what it was.
#1 by Odingirl on June 9, 2009 - 10:20 am
Quote
My God, you’re full of s*#t.
You’re not an expert? Thank heavens you’ve clarified that. However, I don’t think anyone is in any danger of confusing you for an expert.
“Most of the time he makes a claim about some cryptid all he can point at are widely diverse eyewitness reports and pictures that could be of anything.” Um, yeah….that’s where any report of any event begins.
Feel free to re-read and actually comprehend any post you’d like by Loren Coleman or any other cryptozoologist, and you will understand that reporting and ‘gloating’ are hardly synonymous. Reporting does not equal agreement.
#2 by Kristen on June 9, 2009 - 11:20 am
Quote
Have you ever even looked at Loren Coleman’s site? Because for the record, he doesn’t make “claims” about anything cryptid related. He posts media and alleged evidence, as well as accounts of eyewitnesses. I’ve been following Cryptomundo for 2 years. Never once have I seen Loren Coleman says “This is proof of (insert random cryptid here).”
#3 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 12:21 pm
Quote
Dear Odingirl,
Thank you for your intelligent, thoughtful response. It’s so refreshing to find someone on the internet who doesn’t resort to immature personal attacks but instead addresses the facts of my post.
I have read many of Coleman’s posts. You may want to specifically look at the one about Ogopogo I linked to above, where Coleman apparently can’t tell the difference between a kite being flown from a boat and a lake monster. I’m sure this is an indicator of a keen scientific mind.
Please don’t fret, I’ll be returning to the subject of cryptozoology and Coleman again soon. I’m sure you will enjoy the posts a great deal.
#4 by Seth L on June 9, 2009 - 1:16 pm
Quote
I lost interest in Cryptomundo when they dove headfirst into the whole roadkill + monkey suit= Skunk Ape Body hoax.
#5 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 1:46 pm
Quote
Kristen,
I have been a long time reader of Cryptomundo. I don’t want to get into an argument over whether or not Coleman has ever used the exact words “This is proof…,” but he certainly spends a lot of time complaining that scientists don’t take the evidence for cryptids seriously, which implies that he thinks the evidence is good. If the evidence isn’t good, why should scientists consider it at all? I again point you to the Champ article I linked to, where he says Benjamin Radford sounds “harsher than usual.” (Incidently, I think Radford sounds more annoyed than anything else, perhaps because when he recreated the famous Champ picture for a TV show and proved the object was much closer to the camera than it appeared, he nearly died of hypothermia. He’s probably not looking forward to messing around in the lake again.)
Then there’s the flipside of your argument. If Coleman is “just posting” and not making any judgement on the value, strength, or validity of the evidence he’s presenting, don’t you want people like me to be doing just that? Does it really make the case for Ogopogo stronger to have someone publishing photos of a kite and saying it’s a lake monster? Do movies of a swimming deer mean there’s a lake monster in Champlain? All “evidence” or “reports” like this do is prove there are a lot gullible people in the world.
#6 by James R on June 9, 2009 - 2:27 pm
Quote
Scott, I’d be curious to know your view on whether Bigfoot exists or not. I’ve long ago given up on ‘lake monsters’, but can’t shake the idea (however incredible, ridiculous) that something extraordinary lives in the Pacific Northwest (obviously a sufficient population). What amazes me is that in the most advanced, richest country on earth, there is not one millionaire who is willing to spend 100K for a one week expedition composed of a half-dozen naturalists, scientists, etc in the ‘best’ location. They’d get to start in Seattle for goodness sakes, not the Congo or Borneo. Not one person since Tom Slick has any dough to do this? Very discouraging.
#7 by odingirl on June 9, 2009 - 4:04 pm
Quote
*blush* … Gosh, thanks, Scott. You sure know how to flatter a girl. But I can hardly take credit for a ‘thoughtful and intelligent response’ in the shadow of someone who can apparently be a “long time reader” of a person’s web site and yet still characterize them completely inaccurately and infairly. That takes a special kind of arrogance.
#8 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 5:22 pm
Quote
I assume that when you say “characterize them completely inaccurately and infairly” you’re referring to Coleman’s “just reporting” defense. Don’t worry, I’ll be getting to that tonight. Luckily, Coleman replied to me on his blog and gave me rich meat to sup upon.
And I can’t help but notice that two responses in, and you still haven’t addressed any of the facts. I guess those are beyond dispute. Thanks for admitting it.
#9 by odingirl on June 9, 2009 - 7:51 pm
Quote
With the proper ‘fact-finding equipment’ to assist me – in this case, I doubt even the Hubble space telescope could see far enough – I’m sure I could find those ‘facts’ of yours you’re referring to. In the meantime, what I’m left with is, “…in this case the film clearly shows some sort of animal…almost certainly a deer”. Your evidence? The same as anyone else speculating about the images…your opinion. Period.
In truth, the only ‘fact’ is that you do not know with any more certainty than the rest of us what is depicted in the Lake Champlain footage. Despite your assertions, your opinion, just like everyone else’s at this point, is pure conjecture. Fair enough. Your claim that the creature is a deer isn’t any different than what most people interested in cryptids have already said about the subject a week ago.
The difference between ‘us’ and ‘you’ is that we (including Loren Coleman and countless others) are all too willing to admit that we don’t know and may never know. That enough ‘facts’ for you?
If you were actually interested in the truth, whatever that may eventually prove to be, you would have stuck to your beloved ‘facts’ instead of dismissing a 35+ year veteran of cryptozoology and making smug assumptions. But, smug and dismissive is the bread-and-butter of your blog, after all.
#10 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 7:58 pm
Quote
So… you admit that the animal in the film is probably a deer? Then why are you coming to my blog and insulting me? Can’t you handle the truth? Do you think that insulting me will make the truth you can’t handle go away?
Having an open mind is great, but nothing is gained if your mind is so open your brain falls out.
#11 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 8:14 pm
Quote
James,
I doubt very much anything like Bigfoot really exists. I have a lot of trouble getting over the fact that there are no known primates in North America before humans, so what could Bigfoot be? While an expedition might be fun, I don’t see what it can achieve that 50 years of continual human habitation in the area hasn’t already. Someone should have found a Bigfoot body by now, no matter how “elusive” they’re supposed to be. There’s a lot of hunters and hikers out there, and despite what cryptozoologists keep claiming, I don’t think they’d just ignore a Bigfoot corpse if they found one.
#12 by odingirl on June 9, 2009 - 8:37 pm
Quote
“Flocks of lights in the sky…uncooperative Hominids lead us on wild goose chases…welcome to blind man’s bluff. The blind man in question is led by his sense of self righteous certainty. His nose tells him he is on the right track even if the track is a ploy…We can’t have any blanks in our user’s guide to earth, now can we? Then again, perhaps we do if we weigh the evidence in relation to the weaknesses of our conceptual models officially endorsed and ritually certified by others as an edict. Maybe the old vehicle of weighing empirical reality by our current concepts just needs some patching up despite the fact it has four flat wheels and is incapable of discriminating sh–t from shoe polish.” – Bruce Duensing, Intangible Materiality
#13 by Scott Hamilton on June 9, 2009 - 8:43 pm
Quote
Fine odingirl, show me the evidence I’m ignoring. Where is it? Where are the lake monster carcasses? Where are the Bigfoot carcasses? Show me one. I’d rather be “self-righteous” and have the facts on my side than be “open minded” to the point of always being wrong. (Of course, I use “open minded” in quotes. People who ignores facts aren’t really open minded.)
#14 by Joel on June 10, 2009 - 2:32 am
Quote
Well said, Scott, and it raises an important point: the fact that believers in cryptids like Champ are under the assumption that they’re open-minded simply because they believe in something that most people don’t. That, simply put, is a total fallacy.
Being open-minded means having a set of criteria which, if met, will cause you to change your opinion about something. Being close-minded is to lack such criteria, to have an opinion and stick with it no matter what. Scott has clearly indicated what it would take to change his mind: a carcass. He could probably list other criteria, as well. Ergo, he *can* be convinced, he just isn’t at present because none of the criteria have been met. What, I wonder, would it take to convince a believer in Champ that their belief is mistaken? Anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that there’s nothing that could accomplish that since no matter how many hoaxes are exposed, no matter how many blurry videos are explained as being footage of something decidedly not Champ, the response from believers is to say, “Ok, maybe that was a hoax, after all, and maybe that was a deer, after all, but that doesn’t mean Champ isn’t out there. The evidence will surface one day”. In other words, they will never change their mind. They haven’t based their opinion on criteria that can or can’t be met, but rather on a desire to believe in something super cool and bigger than themselves.
Now, who again is close-minded in this particular thread?