 |
| Jeff Johnson's theoretical interpretation of the Sandra Mansi photo and an actual plesiosaur fossil in a limestone matrix from the U.K.. Jeff has modified the photo to indicate the theoretical body underwater |
FRONTIERS OF ZOOLOGY
Dale A. Drinnon has been a researcher in the field of Cryptozoology for the past 30+ years and has corresponded with Bernard Heuvelmans and Ivan T. Sanderson. He has a degree in Anthropology from Indiana University and is a freelance artist and writer. Motto: "I would rather be right and entirely alone than wrong in the company with all the rest of the world"--Ambroise Pare', "the father of modern surgery", in his refutation of fake unicorn horns.
Friday, 16 November 2012
Lake Champlain Plesiosaurs
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the model is great to look at, I think we should be happy looking at 'what once was'.Interpreting the object on the right in the Mansi photo as a flipper rather than the back is certainly a new idea - but not one I can agree with. If this was simply a odd shaped log that happened to be floating on the surface, at least we got some excitement out of it.
ReplyDeleteNever seen a log shaped like that....doesn't sound far fetched to me that this Plesiosaur is in our waters.
ReplyDeleteIMO it looks like a Giant salamander's tail, perhaps fighting against another individual.
ReplyDeleteDespite Roy Mackal's assertion to the contrary, giant salamanders are not prone to sticking their tail ends up out of the water. However your suggestion that there are giant salamanders in Lake Champlain is novel and it would account for some reports of smaller "Lizard-shaped" monsters reported there. I would suggest we put a bookmark on that one and watch out to see if more reports of the type show up in the future. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteAs interesting as the above plesiosaur/"champ" photo comparisons are I think the Mansi "champ" photo is more recognizable as a piece of driftwood then a plesiosaur. Benjamin Radford did an analysis (probably the best one yet) of this photograph and reached the same conclusion. He also shows us a picture of a log found on the shore of Lake Champlain which could easily be mistaken as a "monster" if seen floating on the lake. I'm not saying that the photo no longer needs to be investigated. It's just that the photo doesn't seem to show an animate object. You can read Radford's article at Skepticle Inquirer.com
ReplyDeleteBy the way, the museum model of a plesiosaur shown above has the nostrils incorrectly positioned at the end of the snout.
Joe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe comparison in question is the work of Scott Mardis, who is the proper one to reply (My initial and just-deleted reply was misdirected owing to the fact that I thought you were posting a comment on a later different article on Champ that I had just put up separately.) I have myself pubished an article agreeing with Benjamin Radford.
ReplyDeleteScott Mardis is publishing an alternative point of view in hopes of stimulating interest on the subject. For those purposes I have opted to remain neutral. The readers are invited to examine the evidence and decide for themselves. Which is what you have done and that's fine with me.
Thank you for pointing that out about the museum model being wrong in respect to the placement of the nostrils. In bona fide Longneck reports it seems the nostrils are indeed placed on top of the head and in front of the eyes. When "Horseheaded" reports specify large round nostrils at the end of the snout, like a horse's nostrils, those reports are NOT Longnecks but are mistaken obsevations, most usually views of swimming mooses, which do have their nostrils in that position.
Thank you for writing,
Best Wishes, Dale D.
It's unusual to hear a cryptozoologist of the "believer" sort say that Mansi's famous photo shouldn't be used as "evidence" for the existance of long-necked sea serpents. With the debunking of the Mansi photo (and the Rhine's alleged "flipper" photograph shown to be sediment on the bottom of the loch) it must be a lot harder for cryptozoologists to insist that long-necked sea serpents exist.
ReplyDeleteIts not unusual to heart a blanket prejudicial and unthinking statement of the sort you just made as coming from the skeptical community. It seems once again you are having trouble with the concept that Scott Mardis and Dale Drinnon are two separate people who might hold different opinions on the subject. Each one of us goes by whatever evidence seems to be the best for them: Scott Mardis is the more conservative sort who believes that most evidence taken to support the idea of Long-Necked Sea Serpents must be defended to better the case for the Sea Serpent: Dale Drinnon believes that the case is adequately proven by witness' agreement on specific details of Plesiosaurian anatomy worldwide, including among primitive peoples, including the recurring insistence that the skull has euryapsid openings behind the eyes, from all sorts of people who did not know eack other beforehand to conspire to tell the same story. It also occurs to me that you frequently come around at prime drinking hours and make feeble insinuations of this sort rather than making any good firm statements of fact and NOT mere assertions of opinion. And I warn you once again: please keep to the point, no scattergunning of arguments and kindly refrain from inferred innuendo in your comments. Let's try to keep it civil.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, dale. I should have contacted Scott Mardis in the first place to hear his rebuttle to common objections to using the Mansi photograph as evidence for living plesiosaurs. How do I contact him?
ReplyDeleteFunny thing, that is what Dick Raynor said last time he was posing here. Scott is at lochness969@yahoo.com . And please do not make me sorry I told you his address!
ReplyDeleteYou should see Clifford Paiva's analysis of the Mansi photo at My Opera.com. It reveals features which he believes are reptilian and plesiosaurian in identity.
ReplyDeleteHow do you interpret those features, Dale?
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion has little to do with the presentation. It is Scott Mardis' presentation and it came as a complete surprise to me. However I would say that it looks very plausible to me. I also understand (please correct me if Iam wrong) that Ben Radford was speaking about a specific waterlogged stump which was found at Lake Champlain and which resembled this photo from certain angles. Dick Raynor seems to also set great store by this idea, but Scott Mardis speaks about the stump being only a "Hypothetical" piece of driftwood. In the past I had supported the idea that the object in this photo was "that" stump but then that was in part based on the notion that the stump had been apprehended and was in custody.
ReplyDeleteYou should read Radford's article at Fortean Times.com; in it he shows us two pictures of actual logs found at Lake Champlain which (sort of) remind one of the features revealed in the 2011 Paiva analysis such as what look like eyes and a mouthline. I don't think he made any direct comparison between either of these logs and the object in the Mansion photo, though.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the Paiva analysis of 2011, Jay Cooney said he thought "that the 'scales' and 'thick, reptilian jaw' he (Paiva) is seeing are actually the result of artifacts from him zooming in and contrasting the image so much.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think, Dale?
I had read Radford's article long ago but I had not had a refresher on it more recently. I do recall being impressed with it at the time. Jay Cooney might well also have a point about resolution problems.
ReplyDeleteThe woman's name is Mansi, not Mansion.
It seems you are also making equivocal statements about the supposed log or logs. That is no better than before. Upon my rechecking the original statements made by Radford, Naish and Raynor on the matter I find that all of the are persuaded that the photograph shows driftwood-LIKE features and that Radford had photographed pieces of driftwood at Lake Champlain which were "supposed to be like" the object in the Mansi photo. Upon rechecking I can honestly say the pieces of wood do not exactly match the object in the photograph and that was not actually claimed in the sources but merely insinuated. So the claim that " the stump had been apprehended and was in custody" also fails. And I am actually disappointed that these men can do no better than that.
On the balance of the submissions I will have to say now that the case for a piece of driftwood is no better than Scott Mardis' reconstruction of a Plesiosaur seen from that particular angle and that the Plesiosaurian theory has regained enough respectability to be allowed consideration. And although I also still hold that the driftwood idea has its own merits too, the case for the object in the Mansii being a piece of driftwood has been somewhat diminished. Part of the support for the object being a piece of driftwood comes from the preconceived notion that it must have been a piece of driftwood and in fact all of the authors who write on that hypothesis admit to starting out from that assumption. That includes my own earlier submission on the subject.
Here is the link to the Tetrapod Zoology discussion on the Mansi photograph:
ReplyDeletehttp://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/06/03/mansi-champ-photo/
To "Joe Richardson":
ReplyDeleteI have been gracious enough to answer your questions directed to me and concerning my own opinions. Now you once again begin to question Scott Mardis' opinions and statements saying that his version of things conflicts with Radford's. To which I must again reply that you must go to Scott if you wish to discuss anything like that. For one thing, you have already passed a line where I said I would not allow you to post anything here, because you were being insulting, annoying and inflamitory. I repeat those statements to you once again. I personally do not believe in Radfords' opinions on this matter and I have just told you that I consider Scott's version of things to be at least as likely. The point has now become moot. Go find another forum if you wish to continue this debate because I consider the matter to be closed and any further comments from you to be worthless. Go to Scott Mardis if you wish to debate with Scott Mardis. I have only reprinted his article here in the cause of fairness. "Joe", you continue to try to use the occasion to be most UNFAIR and completely one-sided on the issue.