Champ compilation

Jay Cooney just republished Scott Mardis' report from Lake Champlain previously posted here but in this case Id like to draw attention to another one of Thomas Finlay's illustrations for the Bizarre Zoology blog. There was a poster to illustrate Lake Champlain and its monster that Id like to mention here.

First off, Samuel de Champlain never described Champ, he spoke of a monstrous fish that was most likely a large gar. The name he used was like the native name for the Long-nosed gar in the region, but he gave the dimensions of an Alligator gar. Since in either event this giant gar has become extinct more recently, it is probably a moot point as to which species the fish originally belonged to.

Now Id like to reproduce two sections off of Thomas Finlay's work, but only the second one is what the discussion shall be about:

Right hand panel which contains the background information and Thomas' original copyright notice

And the bottom which has the reconstructions. The scientific name is irrelevant and means nothing. It presupposes an unproven and I think highly unlikely relationship for the creature.

The pointed fin on the back of the one model obviously corresponds to the hump on the back of the other creature model, and in the majority of the reports this is referred to as a hump.


In comparing the two versions of Champ it is obvious that one has a much larger head than the other and in fact this corresponds to certain reported creatures from Lake Champlain that have fairly big, horse-shaped heads (Indicated by the inset below) this corresponds to a series of reports which are distinguished not only by having large heads with horselike freatures (Including the typical placement of the eyes far back and near the top of the head, and the nostrils at the tip of the blunted snout which dialate to a large size, but also noticeable ears at the back of the head, and an overall coating of rough shaggy hairs, which can include the mane. Typically the neck is thickish and not especially long , and in such cases as David Miller's sighting off of British Columbia, there is a good cause for assuming the scale and distance have been misjudged (I the Miller case, going by the scale the creatures's head is six feet long and three feet thick going by the scale, which are figures that contradict most of the similar sightings by a wide margin)Since several such sightings on Lake Champlain even include Moose antlers, it would seem these sightings ordinarily refer to swimming moose. The Olsen videotape at Lake Champlain is evidently one of these and the shape of the head does appear to indicate antlers with the head turning at different angles and thus "Changing shape" (in the bad focus)

Stills from the Olsen video together with the most likely culprit, a swimming moose.

But then I noticed something odd about the "Tanstropheus" model for Champ: the proportions are approximately the same as in Oudemans' model for the Great Sea Serpent in the later 1800s, but with the neck and tail swapped;  Even the belly contour and limbs are of a similar profile.

And in fact the changeover from Model A to Model B for Champ would seem to be a change in perceptions in the public mind or the conceptions of witnesses rather than a real change in creatures. The changeover from sightings which agreed with Oudemans' model and the more recently common more Plesiosaurian reports has a direct parallel in the perceptions shown in Sea Serpent reports (See link below to blog article discussing the change in Sea Serpent popular peceptions following after the Daedalus sighting)

And this can be demonstrated in the "Caddy" witness' drawings from British Columbia in about the early 1930s for one specific example.

Now the really interesting part is hat the more recent, more Plesiosaurian series of descriptions follows closely after the model of Ivan Sanderson (And the Loch Ness Monster models of Gould and Dinsdale, which are both very close to Sanderson's version)

When the length of the neck of the one larger-Champ model is shortened to be more in line with the majority of reports, the proportions overall are much more like the other model for champ. Furthermore it seems that the both the size of the head and the length of the tail in the smaller creature model should actually be modified to be more like the larger creature model (which has both a smaller head and a smaller tail.)

This eliminates the obvious source of confusion with the swimming moose reports and provides us with the overall composite below

 (Three humps on the back is the most common variation reported both at Lake Champlain and at Loch Ness. My analysis of the Champ reports was done out of the reports included in Zazinsky's book, with additional later information included, and I have indicated several of the reports on this blog before)

This compares very well also with Dinsdale's composite for the Loch Ness Monster as noted (Versions of Dinsdale's composite included both two-humped and three-humped back, and in the version copied below I opted to leave them off which Dinsdale also indicated was a option) And it is also very much in line with my own Longneck statistical composites shown in different revisions below. The black and grey diagrams are most recent and probably the most precise, leaving aside the question of the humps on the back for another discussion another time.

It is important to emphasize that the various reconstructions done by Sanderson, Dinsdale, myself and the other were all done separately and yet they all match up pretty closely: and these composites were variously done for Sea Serpents in general, Loch Ness, Caddy, the Patagonian Plesiosaurs and Australian Longneck sightings each separately and yet they alll match up very closely. I consider that Thomas Finley's reconstructions for Champ show the same general agreement, allowing for the fact that the reports are also becoming more precise over time and so the older reports are less accurate than the newer ones are.

Former blog postings touching on the shubject of Longneck reconstructions outside of Lake Champlain are as follows:

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2011/06/daedalus-sea-serpent-1848-and-start-of.html

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/07/plesiosaurian-ss-models-check.html

http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/2013/08/longneck-loch-ness-monster-composites.html

Early Merhorse Art by Thomas Finley, and Longnecked Seals in General

"Merhorse" by Thomas Finley 2013.
Thomas Finley said when he made this illustration:
 "This painting captures an elusive Merhorse both above and below the waves and gives a special over all view of the size of the creature. This is a special request for the Bizarre Zoology Blog Series."
I then objected that Bernard Heuvelmans had made several specifications about the Merhorse, including that it was supposed to have enormous eyes. After some discussion (and submissions of competing artworks by both of us), Thomas Finley developed what we thought was a good and authoritative  Merhorse ex Heuvelmans.
However it seems Jay Cooney had originally intended this painting to represent a more generic giant pinniped which could account for reports contained in the Merhorse category. We can perhaps equate this to Peter Costello's version of the Longnecked Seal theory more than Heuvelmans' version per se (There is a good reason for saying so and we shall be getting to it directly)

 

 This is an image of Bernard Heuvelmans' Merhorse. It comes from a

 series of such illustrations as added in the next blog...

 

Thought to be a head-on view of a Merhorse by Heuvelmans. This could just possibly be an attempt to represent a sighting of the Hoy Island 1919 SS type head-on, assuming this face goes with that type. I feel pretty definitely this is a pinniped at least.

 

 

biomarginalia (Presumably Cameron McCormick) writes:
[Regarding]Bernard Heuvelmans’ “Long-Necked" sea serpents: the Hoy “sea serpent" is fascinating, although rather than evidence for a long-necked species of pinniped, I wonder if it was an encounter with a very very wayward (and exaggerated) eared seal. As for the others, it is within the realm of possibility for mirages to create the impression of a long-necked creature (I’ll have to track down that diagram). Confusingly, it is not explained why the Tonny and Orme’s Head encounters are classified unambiguously into this category (and not, say as Super Otters or Many-Humped); amazingly the Orme’s Head sighting was published in the rather improbable venue of Nature. It may be a bit more difficult to publish a sea serpent report there today. [These drawings were published in the recent blog on Longnecked reports in general-DD]
http://www.tumblr.com/liked/by/astronomy-to-zoology/page/4

Bernard Heuvelmans' version of the Long-necked giant Sea lion, his "Megalotaria"

 

Reconstituted J Mackintosh Bell sighting creature, seen off the island of Hoy in the Orkneys, 1919.

This would presumably be a female. Length from nose to tail would be 13-14 feet, the size of a walrus but of course with the neck being more elongated.

 

This would be the hypothetical male and female of the species

As a sort of "Northern Bunyip" it is possible that the male would have a mane of thick hair all over the neck and not just a stripe of hair along the spine: the female's neck would be hairy too, but that would perhaps not be so obvious. The male might be up to 18-20 feet long maximum, the size of an elephant seal, although once again not built the same way and not weighing as much.

 

There is an earlier blog entry giving good reasons why this model is to be preferred to something more closely similar to the original drawings produced to illustrate the sighting.

 

In the version below, taken from Heuvelmans, the reader is led to believe the witness produced these drawings himself. In fact when checking Rupert T. Gould's retelling of the original report, it is clear that Bell had difficulty in making a good representation of the creature and these drawings were made by his wife. the drawing is decidedly amateurish and with wavering uncertainty of the outline

 

The measurements which were specified are actually in conflict with this drawing. The length of the neck is just about equal to the width of the back: the length of the body is about twice as long as the length of the back. The rear flippers are again about the length of the back. The whole length of the creature is about seven times the length of the head, the neck being twice and the body being four times the length of the head, plus the length of the head for itself. The corrected proportions are as redrawn above.  Length including the tail flippers for the male is 20-25 feet long and for the female is 15-18 feet long

 

The head and neck was made under the impression that it resembled the 1893 Lochalsh sighting by Farquahar Matheson out of the illustrations which Gould provided for reference.

 In his account, J. Mackintosh Bell had stated that the neck above water was as thick as an elephant's foreleg and all rough looking. An elephant's foreleg is a much thicker object than is shown in the original drawing and an attempt to make an appropriate corresponding thickness of neck is what is shown in the above paste-up.

There is one good Scientific account and illustration of a longnecked seal, made in the late 1700s and evidently making reference to a creature sighted around the British isles and not actually seen by the artist himself. This is nonetheless the only really substantial documentation of the allegation. In this case, a young male was said to measure 7 1/2 feet long and the projected size of an adult male would then be between 20 and 25 feet long (Pehaps 30 feet long counting the outstretched rear flippers)
(The adult male sea lion is about three times as long as the pup, a statement affirmed by Heuvelmans)

This information was provided by Darren Naish:

 James Parson wrote a paper in 1751 in which he described five “species” of Phoca, among them he mentioned a Dr. Grew’s “long neck’d seal” from an unknown locality. This peculiar seal was actually part of the Royal Society’s Museum, and as such it was included in a Catalog published in 1681, where it was described as follows:From his nose end to his fore-feet, and from thence to his tail, are of the same measure [4]

Heuvelmans' composite is not a good match for the Long-necked Sea lion:

But it IS just possibly a good match for the J Mackintosh Bell/ 1919 Hoy SS, allowing that neither drawing was going to be precisely accurate:

And as a final check, matching the full reconstruction to the Hoy SS proportions, we see there is a severe difference in proportions. The heads, flippers and bodies are not so much different in relative size, but the neck is actually drastically shorter. and that is the major difference, the actual Longnecks have a Plesiosaur-like neck which typically measures 10-20 feet in adults (Estimating a total length of 28 to 55 feet going by Oudemans' charts and reducing the tail lengths appropriately: the average 15 foot long neck belongs to a 40 foot long adult)

The lengths given by Peter Costello for his big eared model of the long necked seal are a minimum of about 18 feet for females and a maximum of about 30 feet for the males.(In Search of Lake Monsters p 288) This is no way comparable to the basic Longnecks (including the averages of such sightings as alleged at Loch Ness) but is a pretty exact match for the predictions based on the Hoy SS redrawn model. The drawing made at the top of the page by Thomas Finley is a pretty decent portrayal of the type: BUT the big ears in this artwork and as specified by Costello do not go with this type, they go with the Master-Otter and other kinds of Water-Monsters. This model would NOT account for the majority of reports in Loch Ness, Lake Okanagan, Lake Champlain or Lake Storsjon, BUT they might do well to account for SOME of the Irish reports and some of the "Long-Necked Seal" Bunyips that are explicitly described as such (ibid pp 273-276)(at a total estimated length of 5-15 feet long, which I consider a fair match, and not measuring the rear flippers in with the length)

As I had said it before, I prefer to refer to the Long necked Sea Serpent reports collected by Heuvelmans as "Megalotaria longicollis" to represent two types, the majority being the Longneck longicollis but this series as typified by the 1919 Hoy Sea Serpent retaining the genus name Megalotaria (Big Sea lion). I would have preferred to retain the name Megophias preferred by Oudemans for the Longicollis creature, but I have heard some very persuasive arguments why that name should not be maintained. Incidentally the colloquial term "Long-neck" as a reference to the long-necked plesiosaurs (and as distinguished from the short-necked plesiosaurs) runs back as far as the middle 1800s (the middle of the 19th century, and old enough for the term to be understood since before the American Civil War. References to Oudemans' composite creature as a Long-neck or a Long-necked seal were not merely descriptive, they were making a direct acknowledgement that his Megophias looked like a long necked Plesiosaur) Thus the uses for Long Necked seal and Long Necked Plesiosaur are almost equally as old as each other: it cannot be objected that the term is a modern one or that Heuvelmans made it up.

 

Tusked Megalopedus and Sukotyro

Thomas Finley posted this drawing this morning and said that it represented a "Tusked Megalopedus." I checked on Karl Shuker's blog and it mentioned two creatures of similar appearance, the "Tusked Megalopedus", which came from a work of fiction, and the Sukotyro, an actual Cryptid of similar appearance said to live on the island of Java, Indonesia (Similar creatures are hinted at in the artwork of Bali, which is close to Java, acording to the Wikipedia article cited below).

Thomas subsequently amended his label to indicate his artwork depicted the Sukotyro also.

Sukotyro, 1812

http://karlshuker.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-megalopedus-sukotyro-and-very.html

[Quoting Shuker's blog but beginning after the part where the Megalopedus was described and dismissed...]
.....
Having said that, there is one final, but extremely significant twist in the tale (if not the tail!) of the tusked Megalopedus. Even though this is assuredly a make-believe mammal, its description is strangely reminiscent of a seemingly genuine yet wholly obscure, long-forgotten mystery beast that I serendipitously uncovered during my Megalopedus investigations. And the name of this overlooked oddity? The Sukotyro of Java.


THE SUKOTYRO

While seeking possible images of the Megalopedus before discovering its true nature, I spotted a very unusual antiquarian print for sale online. It depicted two animals. One was Australia’s familiar duck-billed platypus. The other was an entirely unfamiliar hoofed mammal labelled as the Sukotyro. This print was a colour plate taken from Ebenezer Sibly’s A Universal System of Natural History (1794). I collect antiquarian natural history prints as a hobby, but I was reluctant to purchase this one as I considered its asking price to be unjustifiably high. Happily, however, further internet perusal soon yielded several other plates depicting this same creature, all dating from the early 1800s.

Despite emanating from different sources, these plates' depictions were all clearly based upon the same, earlier, original illustration (see later here). And as they were reasonably priced, I duly purchased no less than three large, excellent plates (two in colour, one b/w) that included the instantly-recognisable sukotyro image (together with various well-known beasts). At a later date I also succeeded in purchasing a reasonably-priced 1804-dated version of Sibly's plate.

 

As the images reproduced here from some of these plates reveal, the sukotyro does not readily resemble any known mammal. Its large, burly body (variously portrayed as elephantine grey or deep-brown in coloured depictions) is somewhat rhinoceros-like in general shape but its smooth skin lacks these creatures’ characteristic armour, and its long, bushy-tipped tail differs from their shorter versions. Equally distinct is the short upright narrow mane that runs down the entire length of its back.

Furthermore, each of its feet appears to possess four hooves (thereby allying it with the pigs, hippos, camels, ruminants, and other even-toed ungulates or artiodactyls, whereas the rhinos are odd-toed ungulates or perissodactyls, which also include the horses and tapirs). Its head is also totally unlike that of any rhinoceros, sporting a sturdy but elongate, hornless muzzle ending in a pair of decidedly porcine nostrils, a pair of long, pendant ears, and, most distinctive of all, a pair of truly extraordinary tusks.

 

The earliest known description of the sukotyro is that of Johan Niewhoff (aka Niuhoff and Neuhoff) in his account of his travels to the East Indies, entitled Die Gesantschaft der Ost-Indischen Gesellschaft in den Vereinigten Niederländern, and published in 1669. He also included an illustration of it (as reproduced directly above this paragraph), upon which all subsequent ones appear to have been directly based. His description, kindly translated from Dutch into English for me by longstanding Dutch cryptozoological correspondent Gerard Van Leusden, reads as follows:

"The animal Sukotyro as it is called by the Chinese has a wonderful and strange shape. It is about as big as an ox, has a snout like a pig, two long rough ears and a long hairy tail and two eyes that stand high, completely different from those in other animals, alongside the head.

"At each side of the head, along the ears, are two long horns or tusks that are darker than the teeth of the elephant. The animal lives from vegetables and is seldom captured."

 

My continuing searches revealed that the Sukotyro received its most authoritative scientific coverage in 1799, by British Museum zoologist Dr George Shaw in Vol 1 of his exhaustive 16-volume General Zoology: Or Systematic Natural History.

The sukotyro as depicted in a copper engraving within Shaw's treatise (Dr Karl Shuker)

Inserting it directly but somewhat hesitantly after the elephant in this volume’s main text (and neglecting to mention, incidentally, that in 1792 its species had been formally christened Sukotyro indicus by fellow zoologist Robert Kerr), Shaw paraphrased Niewhoff's description and concisely documented this enigmatic mammal as follows:

"That we may not seem to neglect so remarkable an animal, though hitherto so very imperfectly known, we shall here introduce the Sukotyro. This, according to Niewhoff, its only describer, and who has figured it in his travels to the East Indies [Die Gesantschaft der Ost-Indischen Gesellschaft in den Vereinigten Niederländern, 1669, containing the original illustration reproduced above], is a quadruped of a very singular shape. Its size is that of a large ox: the snout like that of a hog: the ears long and rough; and the tail thick and bushy. The eyes are placed upright in the head, quite differently from those of other quadrupeds. On each side the head, next to the eyes, stand the horns, or rather teeth, not quite so thick as those of an Elephant. This animal feeds upon herbage, and is but seldom taken. It is a native of Java, and is called by the Chinese Sukotyro. This is all the description given by Niewhoff. The figure is repeated in Churchill’s Collection of Voyages and Travels, vol. 2. p. 360. Niewhoff was a Dutch traveller, who visited the East Indies about the middle of the last century, viz. about the year 1563 [sic – should be 1653], and continued his peregrinations for several years. It must be confessed that some of the figures introduced into his works are not remarkable for their accuracy."

This would presumably explain, therefore, the anatomically aberrant positioning of the Sukotyro’s tusks, and also, probably, the upright positioning of its eyes. Of course, if the latter are portrayed correctly, it could be suggested that the Sukotyro spends time submerged in water, with only its eyes showing above the surface, as with hippopotamuses, whose eyes are also placed high on their skull. However, so too are the hippos’ nostrils and ears, whereas those of the Sukotyro are not, thereby reducing the likelihood that it does spend any length of time largely submerged.

The Sukotyro (top) and Asian elephant (bottom) in a colour plate from 1806 (Dr Karl Shuker)

As for the Sukotyro’s tusks: ignoring their potentially-inaccurate horizontal orientation, they remind me both in shape and in size of those bizarre versions sported by the babirusas of Indonesia (formerly a single species, but recently split into several separate ones). These grotesque-looking wild pigs are famous for the huge vertical tusks sported by the males, in which not only the lower tusks but also the much larger upper ones project vertically upwards, with the upper ones growing directly through the top of the snout!

Babirusa (Hirscheber/Wikipedia)

Babirusas are native to Celebes (Sulawesi) and various much smaller islands close by, but zoologists believe that they may have been deliberately introduced onto at least some of these latter isles by human activity rather than by natural migration. If so, might they also have been transported elsewhere in Indonesia, perhaps as far west as Java, in fact?

Following Shaw’s cautious coverage of the Sukotyro, other zoologists adopted an even more sceptical view of it. This deepened still further following the revelation that a pair of alleged sukotyro tusks acquired by British Museum founder Sir Hans Sloane during the 1700s were actually the horns of an Indian water buffalo. These had been presented as a gift to Sloane by a Mr Doyle after he had discovered them in a partially worm-eaten state inside the cellar of a shop in Wapping, London, and were formally documented in 1727 within the Memoirs of the Academy of Sciences. Eventually, with no further specimens or data regarding it coming to light, the scientific world dismissed the sukotyro as a hoax, after which it quietly vanished from the natural history books. But was it really a hoax?

Babirusa (top) and Sukotyro (bottom) - comparable, or conspecific? (Hirscheber-Wikipedia/Dr Karl Shuker)

"The more I look at the depictions of the Sukotyro, the more they seem – at least to me - to resemble a distorted but still-identifiable portrait of a babirusa. There is no indication that any of these porcine species exist on Java today, but perhaps Niewoff’s mystifying Sukotyro is evidence that one did exist there long ago. Alternatively, could this cryptid even have been an unknown relative of the babirusas, differing from them via its bulkier form and longer ears, but still recognisably akin?"

[Note; Following the usual convention, the names of Cryptids are properly capitalized-DD]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babirusa

This is very likely and there is also an unidentified Babirusa on Borneo, North of Java. This is the Borneo Deer-Pig and I believe Shuker has also spoken of it. Furthermore there is something of the same nature rumored in Irian Jaya (Indonesian Western New Guinea,) Some of these other Babirusas are also said to be very large. -DD

Quoting from Eberhart, Mysterious Creatures, 2002:
 

Devil Pig

Large piglike  Hoofed Mammal or Marsupial of Australasia.
Variant names: Gazeka, Monckton’s gazeka. Physical description: Dark skin with patterned markings. Length, 5 feet . Shoulder height , 3 feet 6 inches or greater. Long snout . Horselike tail. Even-toed (cloven) feet.
Distribution: Owen Stanley Range, Papua New Guinea.
Significant sightings: Ancient stone carvings depicting strange animals with long, trunklike snout s were first found in 1962 in the Ambun Valley.
Huge (rhinoceros-sized) excrement was found by the crew of the HMS Basilisk on the northeast Papuan coast in the 1870s. Dung from feral pigs, which are the largest Papuan ungulates, is less substantial.
Two native Papuans, Private Ogi and the village constable Oina, saw two large, porcine animals on Mount Albert Edward, Papua New Guinea, on May 10, 1906. Ogi tried to shoot one, but his hands shook, and he misfired.
[There is always the possibility that there is more than one thing being called a Devil Pig, and also that the Devil Pigs, Gazekas and Ambun sculpture creatures are each distinctively different Cryptids. The animals described as having cloven hooves are definitely Pigs]
Possible explanations:
(1) A feral Domestic pig (Sus scrofa var. domesticus) is rarely larger than 2 feet 6 inches at the shoulder.
(2) The Malayan tapir (Tapirus indicus) is odd-t oed and not found as far east as New Guinea.
(3) The Babirussa (Babyrousa babyrussa), found in Sulawesi, Indonesia, is not a close match.
[AMENDMENT: Papuan natives DO use Babirusa tusks, and make copies of them in stone and bone, but these are usually stated to be trade items by the authorities. I have notice of a firm assertion from a missionary to New Guinea who transmits the information that the natives say the Babirusa lives in their area and is the source of the valuable trade ivory]
(4) A Papuan occurrence of the Javan rhinoceros (Rhinoceros sondaicus) is unlikely. (5) A Long-nosed echidna (Zaglossus bruijni ), especially a newly hatched juvenile, might account for the Ambun sculptures.
(6) A surviving diprotodont marsupial, such as the tapirlike Palorchestes or the rhinoceros-like, nasal-horned Nototherium. Most of New Guinea’s native mammals are marsupials, making these large animals viable possibili ies for the Devil pig. The snouted Palorchestes seems particularly akin to the animal depicted in the Ambun stones. The last diprotodonts are thought to have died out in Australia between 18,000 and 6,000 years ago.
Sources: Alfred O. Walker, “The Rhinoceros in New Guinea,” Nature 11 (1875): 248, 268; Adolf Bernhard Meyer, “The Rhinoceros in New Guinea,” Nature 11 (1875): 268; Charles A. W. Monckt on, Some Experiences of a New Guinea Resident Magistrate (London: John Lane, 1920); Charles A. W. Monckt on, Last Days in New Guinea (London: John Lane, 1922), pp. 52–56; Charles A. W. Monckt on, New Guinea Recollections (London: John Lane, 1934), pp. 214–215; W. G. Hept ner, “Über das Java-Nashorn auf Neu-Guinea,” Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 25 (1960): 128–129; “A Remarkable St one Figure from the New Guinea Highlands,” Journal of the Polynesian Society 74 (1965): 78–79; Laurent Forge, “Un marsupial géant survit -il en Nouvelle Guinée?” Amazone, no. 2 (January 1983): 9–11; James I. Menzies, “Reflect ions on the Ambun Stones,” Science in New Guinea 13 (1987): 170–173.

Pukau

Unknown piglike HOOFED MAMMAL of Southeast Asia.

Etymology: Dusun (Austronesian) word. Physical description: Resembles a cross between a deer and a pig. Sharp tongue. Behavior: Runs swiftly if disturbed. Distribution: Mount Madalong, in Sabah State, Borneo, Malaysia. Possible explanation: The Babirusa (Babyrousa babyrussa), whose upturned tusks might be described as a sharp tongue. Though it is found only on Sulawesi, Buru, and neighboring islands, this wild pig’s presence in Borneo could account for the Pukau.

Sources: Owen Rutter, The Pagans of North Borneo (London: Hutchinson, 1929), p. 256; Karl Shuker, In Search of Prehistoric Survivors (London: Blandford, 1995), p. 164.

Hagan Mystery Creature

"Hagan Mystery Creature by Thomas Finley 2013.
This painting is a reconstruction of a mysterious carcass found washed ashore off Southern California 34 years ago. The witness Julie Turtle Hagan described the the creature as being 10 feet long, a bulky body like that of a Walrus with the unusual appearance of a Platypus.
The aquatic mystery mammal also had a blow hole like that of whales & dolphins. Authorities from a local Sea Life Center removed the carcass never to be seen of again or identified.

It is a true oddity. Julie only mentioned the skin was dark brown and leathery "Like" a walrus not a Walrus. Over all appearance was Dolphin like with a blow hole. You are welcome to use it Dale.

Thomas Finley"

UPDATE:
After making some remarks about the anatomy which had a bearing on the identity, Thomas, Jay Cooney and myself were provided with more information. The description had come by way of Julie Hagan. Ms. Hagan described the unidentifiable carcass as being that of an aquatic mammal which had a body that was comparable in its bulkiness to that of an elephant seal. According to Ms. Hagan, the color of the skin was leathery and dark brown like that of a walrus, but was much darker and had little wiry hair. The animal reportedly had a blowhole and a flat tail like a dolphin. However, the carcass also had several unique features such as a large bite mark on its side, two sets of  (the hind flippers were firm and not vestigial), and a head which was described as having a flat, leathery "bill" like that of a platypus. Other than the large wound on its side, the carcass was fully intact and Ms. Hagan feels that it had recently washed ashore. Julie was able to measure the carcass and estimated that its body was ten feet long, approximately four feet high, and possibly 3.5 feet wide.

This is almost certainly a primitive cetacean of some sort. What struck Jay Cooney and myself was the possibility this could be another "Gambo" (certain features in the description contradict the description in Gambo's case, but there might have been mistakes made in observation or in transmission) and Thomas Finley graciously provided us with a revised reconstruction.

SECOND UPDATE: SUNDAY MORNING:
"My good friend Jay Michael Cooney will be presenting a in depth article on Julie Turtle Hagan's eyewitness account of this aquatic mystery creature. It is a great achievement for me as it is rare I get to paint a reconstruction with the assistance of not only the witnesses fine details but also the help from others Jay and Dale Drinnon included to help identify the species and morphology of the animal on the drawing board. Thank you everyone this is a great example of teamwork and its many challenges along the way to find answers we seek.
Thomas Finley"

I note with interest the fact that the mouth is now more definitely that of a beaked whale. Since Jay Cooney's interview will contain new information I am not privy to, this shall also be interesting to see his version of the article.

Lake Champlain Sightings Profiles

 

Some different views of "Champ" from different sources. The video still above ios the same as the  first one on the diagram below, the head seems to change shape. It seems to be a swimming quadruped with only a modest length of neck and it is assumed to be a deer with antlers that present a different aspect from different angles. Its resolution is too poor to make it out any better.

 

There are a couple of different phenomena at Lake Champlain that have fed into the Legend of Champ. Of far more interest to us are the sightings which allege it has a Plesiosaurian shape, with or without humps on the back. Below is an assortment of creatures depicted in different sightings in profile, as variations on the Plesiosaurian category.

 

Drawing of a recent sighting of "Champ" from a Kayak

As produced by Facebook Friend Thomas Finley as part of a package promoting a field trip to Lake Champlain (Via Scott Mardis, who also hopes to go). it is a good match for the second-from-the-last profile on the chart above, but that one is a different sighting taken from a different source.

                   Video purporting to show "Champ": could be a swimming beaver.
                   More distinctive Plesiosaur type sighting below:

Purported "Champ" looking very much like Peter O'Conner's 1960 photo of "Nessie"

(By way of Scott Mardis)

 

Here is my earlier attempt to characterise the Champ sightings as done for a CFZ article. The impression I had was that several of the witnesses used the old Sinclair Oil Dinosaur as a point of reference and so I simply cut a section off of the Sinclair Dinosaur and added the dimensions (The shape of the head was wrong on this reconstruction but nobody knew about that part until more recently) The comparison of Lake Monsters to the Sinclair Dinosaur has also been stated in Lake Superior and in the state of Michigan, but I am rather more dubious of those claims.

 

http://forteanzoology.blogspot.com/2010/01/dale-drinnon-champ-sightings-mock-up.html

http://www.njan.org/draw.php

Champ Sightings List

Please give the files time to open some of the pdfs have many pages
and it may take a few seconds for them to appear. [Joe Zarzynski 1988] [Gary Mangiacopra 2007Pt.1] [Gary Mangiacopra 2007 Pt.2]

[Unfortunately the links have expired but I believe they are still at the Not Only Nessie site,]

Bigfoot With Baby Seen In Florida’s Ocala National Forest

Bigfoot With Baby Seen In Florida’s Ocala National Forest

Friday, August 24, 2012 7:48

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/unexplained-phenomena/2012/08/bigfoot-with-baby-seen-in-floridas-ocala-national-forest-2430262.html

 

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is a condensed version of a man’s encounter with a Bigfoot and its baby in the Ocala National Forest in Florida on January 15, 2012. You can read the entire lengthy report (case #34954) at the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization’s website (www.bfro.net). We are using the pseudonym “Doug” for the witness.

 

One of the sandy roads in the Ocala National Forest – The Bigfoot sighting
was about a mile north of the red star on map.

The witness, “Doug,” is an executive for a large multinational corporation based in Orlando, Florida who oversees approximately 1,000 employees. To decompress from work stress, he often heads to the wilder parts of Florida on the weekends to hike or canoe.
On Sunday, January 15, 2012, he drove deep into the Ocala National Forest north of Highway 42 and west of Deland, Florida and the St. John’s River. Ultimately his car got impossibly stuck in soft sand. Calls for help were useless, so he began digging away the sand around his tires with his bare hands. After digging for a while, he stood up to stretch his back. That’s when his saga began.
“When I stood up, a rock pelted me and a shooting pain went through the inside of my left thigh near the groin area, which caused me to jump back and yelp in pain,” he later reported.
“I immediately looked toward the forest on the other side of the road from where the rock came, and perceived movement in the bushes. At this point, I did not see the creature, but did see movement in the branches and leaves of the shrubs, grasses and saw palmetto. The movement was enough to convince me that someone or something was there, and that it—whatever it was—was the source of the rock. . . .
“The sound that I heard was the sound of leaves and sticks being crushed on the ground, as if someone took one step and then stopped. The sound appeared to come from about 15 feet in the woods behind me.”
The next sound Doug said was “similar to what you might hear from a feral cat that is being cornered, only much, much louder and deeper. It then started to alternate between a hiss and a vocalization that sounded like haaaaawwwww. So the sound it was making was a protracted hhhiiiiiissssssssssssssss, haaaaawwwwwww, hhhiiiiissssssssssssssss, haaaaawwwwwwww, with an intermittent deeper gurgling sound interspersed throughout.”
At that point, fear overtook Doug and he jumped in his car and locked the doors. Through the windows he saw the creature about 15 feet into the woods as it rose up from a prostrate position behind saw palmettos.
“I would estimate that the creature was about eight feet tall. It was extremely bulky across the bust, with very muscular arms, and I have no doubt that it could have easily busted out the windows and ripped me to shreds if it so desired. . . .
“I also observed what would commonly be described as a “love-handle” around the side of the belly area and back. The creature’s hair was black and gray in color and was slicked down against the lighter skin, which could be seen in some places through what appeared to be wet hair. The hair was very thick on the arms and shoulders but less so around the side, belly and back areas. . . .
“The face of the creature was a dark grey color, with very large dark eyes. It had a very large mouth with extremely large, fat lips. The nose was human-like, with one exception, which was large, slightly flared nostrils. The nose did not protrude off its face in proportion to a human’s, but was flatter and more sunken. The creature looked like an ape, but with facial features—especially the nasal area—that were very similar to those of humans.”

Description of little Bigfoot
“About one minute after disappearing into the tree line, the creature reemerged, this time walking completely upright on two legs, just like a human. It paused at the tree line for a second, and then took one huge step back across the road.
“The creature, to my shock and horror, was carrying along a “child” of the same creature. It had both arms of the smaller creature grasped in its right hand, and was dangling the juvenile along by its side, with the legs of the smaller creature almost touching the ground.
“The smaller creature appeared to be completely limp from the neck down, but its eyes were open and it was moving its head and looking toward the trees to which it was being carried. After crossing the road, the creature paused at the tree line on the opposite side of the road, lifted the juvenile up onto its hip, and continued into the scrub.
Read more @ http://www.skyshipsovercashiers.com/bigfootet.htm#baby

Mother and Child portrait by Thomas Finley
Original art by Bigfoot Portrait Specialist artist
Made for the upcoming Honobia Bigfoot Conference