• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lake Monster?

Well, it's notoriously difficult to judge size without external references, but it appears that whatever it is, it's small.

Look at the ripples in the water...they do look like ripples, not waves.

Besides, I've yet to see any creature swim with humps out of the water like that. Watch a snake swim sometime, it's enlightening :)

There's also not very much of a wake produced, and I'd love to see it float in that position.

Nope, hoax. 99.5% sure of it.
 
so ridiculous. if it was a "sea creature", the only way it could really be out of focus is if the person happened to have been in a macro mode to shot a pic of a flower beforehand. anyway, there are so many clear indicators this is a hoax. besides the ones mentioned already, its also a suspicious angle. (i didnt read the report but) was the photographer flying ina helicopter or standing at the edge of a cliff? seems much more like that this is something very small so we get an overhead view
 
davidsmith73 said:
Never seen quite a clear "monster" photo as this. What the photo shows is a different matter of course. Wondered what you all thought of it. Hoax?

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/04/17/argentine_lake_monst.html
Click to expand...


I'd like to see the rest of the picture. No still shot camera that an amateur can afford takes images in anything other than a 3X4 aspect ratio (that I know of).

Gee, can anyone here think of a reason why they might not publish the entire photo? :rolleyes:
 
GodMark2 said:
I'd like to see the rest of the picture. No still shot camera that an amateur can afford takes images in anything other than a 3X4 aspect ratio (that I know of).

Gee, can anyone here think of a reason why they might not publish the entire photo? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cutting out the part with the alien spacecraft flying overhead just cuts down on the controversy.
 
Poor sea monster. This sad little fellow has to break his neck and back just to swim through the water.

If he'd learn from snakes and eels, he could traverse the water without suffering irreversible spinal injuries.
 
GodMark2 said:
I'd like to see the rest of the picture. No still shot camera that an amateur can afford takes images in anything other than a 3X4 aspect ratio (that I know of).
Click to expand...

APS compacts do, though I'm not certain if any of their three standard aspect ratios fits the picture exactly and don't have time to check it.
 
westphalia said:
Poor sea monster. This sad little fellow has to break his neck and back just to swim through the water.

If he'd learn from snakes and eels, he could traverse the water without suffering irreversible spinal injuries.
Click to expand...

Wise words.

I think "cryptozoologists" really need to have some basic knoweledge on anatomy and biology. Even non-biologists (like myself) can catch obvious flaws at some of the nonsense they call "research" .
 
Correa Neto said:
Wise words.

I think "cryptozoologists" really need to have some basic knoweledge on anatomy and biology. Even non-biologists (like myself) can catch obvious flaws at some of the nonsense they call "research" .
Click to expand...

come on guys, this just proves the pictures are real because no one would make such an obvious mistake! an amateur wouldnt have known that this species evolved seperately from familiar animals and thus uses a different kind of locomotion. :boxedin:
 
Correa Neto said:
I think "cryptozoologists" really need to have some basic knoweledge on anatomy and biology. Even non-biologists (like myself) can catch obvious flaws at some of the nonsense they call "research" .
Click to expand...

Er, are there many crypotozoologists saying this is genuine? The comments on cryptomundo are virtually all saying it looks like a fake.
 
Cryptozoology (wooohooo avoided the Freudian lapse of writing "crypotzoology!!!!) "experts" and buffs sometimes reffer to sea and lake monsters as having this sort of "vertical swimming mode". Quite often this is interpreted as being not a result of locomotion mode, but to the supposed animal's supposed anatomy (humps at its back and a coiled long neck). The renderings of these animals are quite... Well... How can I say without being rude... Unlikely. Cardborosaurus (AKA "Caddy")is an example.
Check
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/v01n07a01.html
http://www.kryptozoologie.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=77
And you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, my comment was made within a broader context. Bigfeet, chupacabras, thunderbirds, lake and sea monsters, the Jersey Devil & Co. are all full of biological problems when it comes to their alleged anatomy and ecological niches.

But lets rejoice, for at PNW there are bigfeet in land, thunderbirds in the sky and Caddys at the sea...
 
What isolated body of water was it again that this cute little critter frolics about in? Follow up question: is it a rule now that every single isolated lake on earth must have a cute little critter swimming around in it?
 
One way I could imagine an aquatic creature looping through the water would be when it's thrashing about in its death throes. Could be the creature swam too close to the aliens' secret underwater base and got zapped by a death ray.

Another thought: the purported head and neck seem too thin to match the next body part that's visible; not enough tapering? Or is it a forked tail we are seeing?
 
That cinches it.... it's Manda and he just got done battling Atragon at the depths of Lake Whoziwhatsis. Poor critter just wanted to be friends with the aliens and this is what he gets.
 
I've always wondered how fellows taking pictures of something like a 'lake monster' only ever manage blurry, unusable photos. I'm no photographic expert and with my cheap camera I can take literally hundreds of non-blurry, crisp pictures of mundane things. I think I'd be extra careful to bring BigFoot into focus if he rang my doorbell.

I think it needs to be investigated to see if cryptids, do in fact, have a special power to disrupt photographs of themselves. Someone call Uri Geller..................
 
GodMark2 said:
I'd like to see the rest of the picture. No still shot camera that an amateur can afford takes images in anything other than a 3X4 aspect ratio (that I know of).
Click to expand...

LW said:
APS compacts do, though I'm not certain if any of their three standard aspect ratios fits the picture exactly and don't have time to check it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the information.

The picture in question is 300X130 -> 30*13

The APS formats (from wikipedia) are:
* H for "HDTV" (30.2 x 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 16:9; 4x7" print)
* C for "classic" (25.1 x 16.7 mm; aspect ratio 3:2; 4x6" print)
* P for "panoramic" (30.2 x 9.5 mm; aspect ratio 3:1; 4x12" print)

It's closest to the 3:1 format, but not quite that. I still vote for some cropping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom