Read Online Lake Monster Mysteries by Benjamin Radford - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Benjamin Radford
Ads: Link
flurry of interest in Champ but doesnât provide enough clues to allow a close analysis. The camera had more film in it; the Champ photograph wasnât the last one on the roll. In addition, Mansi says that the creature never even saw her family, so she was presumably in no danger of being detected, threatened, or chased if she had stayed to take more photos. Mansi claims that she took only one because she didnât think to take another; in hindsight, she says that of course she should have finished off the roll. But by that time, she and her family were out of the water, off the shore, and safe on a bluff 150 feet away.
However far-fetched some of the hoax dismissals are, I believe that they are fundamentally correct. In our discussions with Mansi, and after an exhaustive and detailed review of both her account and her photograph, I have come to the conclusion that she is probably an honest and sincere eyewitness reporting essentially what she saw.
Part of the reason I believe Mansiâs story is that, like many real eyewitness accounts, it is flawed and partially contradictory; if Mansi had faked the whole encounter, her story would have been tailored tobe more consistent with other Champ sightings. Also, my assumption as an investigator is that, in general, eyewitnesses are truthful. Though cryptozoology is littered with hoaxes and faked evidence, I see no need to label someone a liar or a hoaxer absent strong evidence of deception. Assuming that both the account and the photo are truthful (though error-prone) records of something in the water, what can we conclude about it?
The Frieden Analysis
In 1981, B. Roy Frieden examined the photograph at the behest of Champ researcher Joe Zarzynski. Friedenâs findings were outlined in his âInterim Reportâ and published in Zarzynskiâs 1984 book Champ: Beyond the Legend.
Frieden believed the picture to be a valid print and found no evidence of photographic tampering. However, he did find a âsuspicious detailâ in the picture: âWhen I showed it to a woman who formerly lived at Lake Champlain, she immediately noticed a brownish streak going horizontally from left to right across the picture right up to the object in question. She right out said that it looked to her like a sandbar.â Frieden believed the streak to be âa real detail in the pictureâ and suggested that if it was a sandbar, âthen there is a distinct possibility that the object was put there by someone.⦠the sandbar problem really has to be investigated.â Frieden also suggested that the photograph may not have been taken where Mansi said it was: âShe [the former resident] was suspicious that the lake was so narrow at that point because Lake Champlain is colossal in width, and that this would have had to take place at whatâs called âThe Narrowsâ by the natives who live around there for it to be a true photograph of the area. I say itâs suspicious because if it is an uncharacteristically narrow portion of the lake, perhaps the picture wasnât taken at Lake Champlain but rather at some other body of water.â The general area of the sighting is relatively shallow, and to date, the sandbar explanation remains a possibility. No evidence has surfaced that the photo was not taken at Champlain.
The LeBlond Analysis
Another analysis was conducted by Paul H. LeBlond of the Department of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. LeBlond (1982) attempted to use the general appearance of the waters surface to estimate the length of the waves and then use that as a scale by which to judge the object in the photograph. After listing the many possible sources of error, LeBlond sums up: âThe inescapable conclusion [despite all the unknowns] is that the object seen in the Mansi photograph is of considerable size.â He estimated its length to be between sixteen and fifty-six feet.
LeBlond used a complex formula
However far-fetched some of the hoax dismissals are, I believe that they are fundamentally correct. In our discussions with Mansi, and after an exhaustive and detailed review of both her account and her photograph, I have come to the conclusion that she is probably an honest and sincere eyewitness reporting essentially what she saw.
Part of the reason I believe Mansiâs story is that, like many real eyewitness accounts, it is flawed and partially contradictory; if Mansi had faked the whole encounter, her story would have been tailored tobe more consistent with other Champ sightings. Also, my assumption as an investigator is that, in general, eyewitnesses are truthful. Though cryptozoology is littered with hoaxes and faked evidence, I see no need to label someone a liar or a hoaxer absent strong evidence of deception. Assuming that both the account and the photo are truthful (though error-prone) records of something in the water, what can we conclude about it?
The Frieden Analysis
In 1981, B. Roy Frieden examined the photograph at the behest of Champ researcher Joe Zarzynski. Friedenâs findings were outlined in his âInterim Reportâ and published in Zarzynskiâs 1984 book Champ: Beyond the Legend.
Frieden believed the picture to be a valid print and found no evidence of photographic tampering. However, he did find a âsuspicious detailâ in the picture: âWhen I showed it to a woman who formerly lived at Lake Champlain, she immediately noticed a brownish streak going horizontally from left to right across the picture right up to the object in question. She right out said that it looked to her like a sandbar.â Frieden believed the streak to be âa real detail in the pictureâ and suggested that if it was a sandbar, âthen there is a distinct possibility that the object was put there by someone.⦠the sandbar problem really has to be investigated.â Frieden also suggested that the photograph may not have been taken where Mansi said it was: âShe [the former resident] was suspicious that the lake was so narrow at that point because Lake Champlain is colossal in width, and that this would have had to take place at whatâs called âThe Narrowsâ by the natives who live around there for it to be a true photograph of the area. I say itâs suspicious because if it is an uncharacteristically narrow portion of the lake, perhaps the picture wasnât taken at Lake Champlain but rather at some other body of water.â The general area of the sighting is relatively shallow, and to date, the sandbar explanation remains a possibility. No evidence has surfaced that the photo was not taken at Champlain.
The LeBlond Analysis
Another analysis was conducted by Paul H. LeBlond of the Department of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia. LeBlond (1982) attempted to use the general appearance of the waters surface to estimate the length of the waves and then use that as a scale by which to judge the object in the photograph. After listing the many possible sources of error, LeBlond sums up: âThe inescapable conclusion [despite all the unknowns] is that the object seen in the Mansi photograph is of considerable size.â He estimated its length to be between sixteen and fifty-six feet.
LeBlond used a complex formula
Similar Books
