Champ Photo
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on April 19th, 2006
In the Nahuelito post by Loren Coleman here on Cryptomundo, there has been reference to the photo taken on July 5, 1977 by Sandra Mansi at Lake Champlain.
To aid the discussion of the photo, I have posted the photo here.
© Gamma Liaison/Sandra Mansi
© Sandra Mansi
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
First off, unlike the Nahuelito images, this one has foreground material in the frame and the opposite bank. With this photo one could go back to the spot where the photo was taken and extrapolate some data about the approximate location of the creature, the depth of the water and the size of the creature.
If nothing else, comparing these two photos should serve as a lesson to any aspiring cryptid hunters. Close-ups are great, but be sure to get a wide angle shot too. All those “distracting branches and foreground stuff” can be invaluable.
Thanks for posting it, not everyone is familiar with it. I’ve probably spent more time investigating this photo and sighting than anyone else. Those interested can read my articles in Fortean Times and Skeptical Inquirer, or, most definitively, in my new book Lake Monster Mysteries, where I devote nearly 30 pages of research and detailed analysis to it.
I won’t bother to summarize my work on it, but I will point out that I believe Sandra is an honest and sincere eyewitness who saw something she didn’t understand, and she was influenced by well-meaning cryptozoologists who convinced her that she had photographed Champ. When she first saw it, she did not believe she was seeing a Champ creature but instead an illusion or misidentification.
My field research and experiments showing that the Champ monster’s “neck” is only three feet out of the water (instead of the six to seven as reported) has never been challenged, and in fact since I published my results, two other researchers told me they came to the same conclusion. This does not prove it’s not a monster, of course, but it does prove that the object is not too large to be an ordinary object such as a log or tree stump.
It is important not to look just at this photograph in isolation, but compare it to the detailed eyewitness report Sandra gave about the sighting. When you do that, and take ALL the evidence into consideration, you find that the best explanation for what she saw and photographed is not an unknown lake monster.
Jeremy wrote:
“With this photo one could go back to the spot where the photo was taken and extrapolate some data about the approximate location of the creature, the depth of the water and the size of the creature.”
Actually, no. Mansi says she doesn’t know exactly (or won’t reveal) where the photo was taken. I spent the better part of a day trying to locate it, north of St. Albans. In the end, we did our experiments as close to where she said as we could find; though the exact spot would be great, you don’t need it to replicate the photo if her estmates are correct.
It certainly is an interesting photo. I maintain there is no Nessie, but Champ may be a different story…
Ok, given that Mansi won’t reveal, (or can’t remember) the exact location, I suppose that is a wash. (Darn but I’m being put in my place a lot since I started posting here!)
But the presence of a foreground and opposite bank are helpful in helping one get a “feel” for the size of the object. Also if Mansi had captured a few good landmarks in her shots, it would be easier to triangulate an approximate location.
In this case, maybe it’s no help. But in general, I can’t help but feel that photos with foreground and background objects are just as important as zooming in for close-ups, especially if one doesn’t have the proper equipment to really reach out and touch their subject because, as any photographer can tell you, the more you blow up a film image, the grainier it gets. And the faster the film speed, the higher the grain. Given that most amateur shooters grab a multi-purpose 400, or now even 800 speed, film for maximum light versatility, the grain is going to be even worse than with slower films.
Again, let me emphasize, I’m not saying that folks should not attempt close-up shots. What I am saying is that images, like the Nahuelito image, would be more valuable if one of the shots had something else in it we could use as a reference to at least begin figuring out water depth, size, etc.
“It certainly is an interesting photo. I maintain there is no Nessie, but Champ may be a different story…”
Yep, the stories usually look pretty convincing—-as long as you don’t ask too many questions! What seems like good evidence (unfortunately) often crumbles under close examination. That’s why, as an investigator, I focus on the “best evidence.” If the best evidence turns out to be not so great, that is a sign of how weak the remaining evidence is.
Jeremy sez: “But in general, I can’t help but feel that photos with foreground and background objects are just as important as zooming in for close-ups”
You are exactly right; in fact, the close-ups are often lacking important information. When I investigated the “best evidence” for the Ogopogo lake monster, the fact that Arthur Folden’s 8mm film starts out on a wide shot showing the bank and foreground was enormously helpful in our analysis. Obviously we all want the best close-ups, but here’s a tip for all you camera-toting monster hunters: please get wide shots as well, if you can!
Ok, i do understand the foreground/background point. However was it not mentioned previously that despite this detail in the above picture there was still debate about the size, the neck being 3 or 6-7 feet? Can not such reference points only aid confusion or even trickery if used properly as a point of ‘mis reference’ I rememember a similar debate about wake size on the surgeons photos at loach ness.
Ranatemporaria: “there was still debate about the size, the neck being 3 or 6-7 feet? Can not such reference points only aid confusion or even trickery if used properly as a point of ‘mis reference”
I don’t know of any “debate” about the size of the neck; most people who claim or repeat the large estimates of the Mansi object are unaware of the research and field experiments I did in 2003, either because they are reading outdated books, or because they and other cryptozoological writers have ignored the research.
In the three years since I published my results, not a single person has challenged my conclusions, in fact others have come to the same conclusion I did using different techniques. The data I used came directly from Sandra Mansi herself, and the numbers simply don’t add up to a large creature.
RE # 8
Ranatemporaria says:
“was it not mentioned previously that despite this detail in the above picture there was still debate about the size, the neck being 3 or 6-7 feet? Can not such reference points only aid confusion or even trickery if used properly as a point of ‘mis reference’”
Yes, a good hoaxer with an understanding of triangulation and trilateration could include such landmarks in a background shot before photoshopping it to “prove” the size of an object.
But likewise, two good landmarks on the opposite shore, with the known distance to the opposite shore, could help determine the photographers position, which could then help clear up any confusion about the length of the neck.
If Mr. Radford would be so kind as to weigh back in with how he came to the three feet length, I’d love to hear how he figured it. (I know, I know, I’m going to try and buy the book… but throw me a bone! The IRS gets all my disposable income for the next couple of months and I’m impatient!)
Sorry there, I was not meaning to draw the validity of your research into question, to the contrary, I aimed to point out that if it wasn’t for this kind of in-depth accurate analysis (which I’m sure is more often than not simply not possible), then the wrong conclusions can be drawn when using initial land mark reference. I remember when I first saw these photos my own initial thoughts, and I assume the thoughts of many others were of something much larger than that that has since been calculated. It is perception and human expectation, sometimes we see what is expected. Representations of objects are learned through experience, and this learning is affected by the temporal sequence in which different views of the objects are seen, as well as by their physical appearance. Unitl these perceptions are proved or disproved mathmatically or similar it can cause confusion.
Jeremy,
Mr. Radford will be speaking in San Antonio at the lecture series for the Bigfoot in Texas? exhibit. I’m sure he will be bringing some copies of his book to sign…
“Mr. Radford would be so kind as to weigh back in with how he came to the three feet length, I’d love to hear how he figured it. (I know, I know, I’m going to try and buy the book…)”
Sure. In sum, Joe Nickell and I did photographic field experiments at Champlain. We took the estimates that Mansi gave us, and I went out into the water with a scale at the distance she claimed and photographed that. We used the same type of camera she used (Kodak instamatic) and another of the same focal length to meaure how big an object is in that field of view. I then traveled to Connecticut to see the original photograph and measured that. I also worked backwards, using a mockup of a 6-foot scale neck out in the water.
Using Mansi’s measurements, the object in the Mansi photo is just over three feet out of the water, and about seven feet long. Not the huge estimates that Paul LeBlond and others had claimed, and which they admitted could be very error-prone. There’s much more to this, but that’s all I can fit in this short answer.
So instead of debunking, or ridiculing eyewitnesses, or dismissing the evidence for Champ, (which skeptics often get unfairly accused of) I actually went in the field, and did valid, original research to try and solve the mystery.
Ranatemporaria; “Sorry there, I was not meaning to draw the validity of your research into question, to the contrary, I aimed to point out that if it wasn’t for this kind of in-depth accurate analysis (which I’m sure is more often than not simply not possible), then the wrong conclusions can be drawn when using initial land mark reference.”
Not at all, your point is an excellent one, and I thank you for bringing it up!
And for that you must be saluted Mr Radford! Top work, the likes of which we need to see more of in order to gain and maintain credability.
Surely now, with most people touting the latest and greatest in digital compact cameras, Digital SLR’s, and even because of the advent of digital SLR’s, cheap and yet really good quality Film SLR’s, we would be expecting more of these sorts of images, with much better resolutions, better quality, less graininess (I know my D70 will take great, high res, high detail, shots with almost no graininess, regardless of ISO (presuming there is a good enough light source of course :P)).
It makes me wonder why even “modern” photos of such lake monsters have surfaced, with good enough resolutions to be analysed in any real way (apart from obvious distance calculations and what not).
Of course film cameras are preferable to Digital cameras because negatives are generally hard to fake (apart from using props and what not), and its easier to verify the authenticity of a negative than a digital image.
Im hopeful that a lake monster is found somewhere, but for some reason i doubt there ever will be. From a purely biological standpoint, assuming that these monsters are some form of living dinosaur / reptile, i read somewhere that there needs to be, at any one time, quite a large population of such creatures (1000? i cant remember the exact figure) to sustain their population for such a long period of time.
If there was such a large population, wouldn’t there be far more sightings than there has been? I Understand Champlain is quite a large lake, but large enough to support and sustain a population of large reptiles (dinosaurs?) without leaving a large fingerprint on the ecosystem, or obvious signs of their existence?
Benmjamin (13) – thank you for the insights. Glad that someone has taken a methodical approach to the investigation (and no, I’m not implying everyone else was not methodical – hope you understand what I mean)…
However, I can’t help but reflect on the fact that 3 foot high, 7 foot long, again, just about perfectly matches a human swimmer.
The only valid counter-claim that I can detect is your own (comment 2) saying that Sandra “is an honest and sincere eyewitness who saw something she didn’t understand”.
But then, in the initial comments at the Nahuelito post someone mentioned that the negatives had been lost. That would be convenient if you had taken a few photos of a swimmer and then realised that one looked uncannily like a lake monster. Do you (or anyone else) have any insights on whether the lost negatives claim is valid?
In that thread, I linked to two photos of swimmers; the first was to illustrate the position that the human arm could take to resemble the head and neck of a lake monster.
In the second photo, taken by Bill Vaccaro and posted on his “Out of Context” website, the resemblance to a lake monster is practically complete.
Says Bill via private correspondence:
“It’s Nessie. She came to Chicago for a much needed break. Loch Ness was too cramped for her… oh, no wait. Wrong answer. 😉
“Seriously, it’s a swimmer whose a regular at my local beach. During the summer, he’s usually out around 8 am and does a about a mile every day. Hope that helps.”
Bill points us to another serious contender, complete with foreground and all.
Thanks Bill!
“Contender” link is dead.
youcan…-
See the other thread – I’ve laid out a number of problems with the “swimmer” theory. Probably foremost is that any observer would readily identify the object as a human swimming within seconds. I mean it is a pretty familiar sight, these people aren’t morons. The “swimmer” misidentification is technically possible, but very improbable.
And of course there’s that troubling matter of the echolocations matching no known animal.
I think some are trying to make something of the neck only extending 3ft above the waterline. Assuming the measurements are accurate, that really isn’t significant – several eyewitnesses have allegedly observed cryptids they estimated were 8-15ft. or so long.
shovethenos (19) – a second animal underwater? That’s plausible.
As you mention, the eyewitness accounts would invalidate the swimmer claim – forgive my ignorance and lack of research, but are we dealing with one witness or several? If it was a photo of a swimmer, the photographer would never have thought to present it as a hoax until after having the film developed – well and truly after other “witnesses” (to the swimmer) would have packed up, gone home and forgotten all about a swimmer.
I still maintain that a swimmer is feasible (and I’m referring only to this photo here) – but ultimately, my personal conclusion is that such a photo will never be conclusive. No surprises there! 😀
PS – yes, a tiny halfbeak looks mighty different to an animal with a sizeable neck! 😀
As many have pointed out – we’ll never predict the physical appearance of a cryptid! Have a look at the Norfanz Voyage photos! (Be sure to follow all links in the orange menu at top).
These were commonly passed around as new discoveries following the 2004 Asian tsunamis, but this fallacy is debunked by snopes. The second photo in the left column at that site looks a little like a plesiosaur to boot!
fuzzy (18) – the link still works for me.
Cradossk
In answer to your query on population size,
” i read somewhere that there needs to be, at any one time, quite a large population of such creatures (1000? i cant remember the exact figure) to sustain their population for such a long period of time.”
The general rule in ecology is based around the work of Franklin and Soule during the 1980’s in which they formulate the 50-500 rule. They claim between 50 and 500 actively breeding individuals are required to maintain sufficient genetic variation. However more recent work on Population Viability Analysis has taken account of many more variable factors and used advanced mathematical models and shows great variability in sustainable population size, though the old rule still holds credibility. One variable effecting population viability is the body size and reproductive rate, i.e. bigger animals tend to reproduce slowly and require smaller populations. However, we mustn’t forget we are dealing with a crypid here and just as we don’t know what it looks like, we have no idea of potential biology! Hence cryptid!
I agree about the non-swimmer bid. It would be too easy to tell that it is a person. And, about the link to humans – at least the one that worked, I don’t think too many people would think that that black and white image has a high probability of being a cryptid, in the same way that a high number of people looking at the Mansi photo would. There is something so characteristically “real” about the shine of (what could be) the neck in the Mansi photo – it seems like what the sun looks like glistening off any sea mammal, such as a sea lion.
Also, what does a 3-foot versus a 6-foot neck really prove? That you have a smaller cryptid versus a larger one? Either way, you are potentially still dealing with something rare or unknown.
And, at least on the color photo, it is pretty clear that there is either much more to the object under the water, or there is a second creature, which has been mentioned. Possibly some natural (logs, rocks) dark shape underwater, but it would be suspicious when it seems attached to that creature. I still think it is perhaps the best photo of an unknown lake cryptid, and I think it stirs up so much debate because people can get the “feel” for themselves that it has that potential.
“However, I can’t help but reflect on the fact that 3 foot high, 7 foot long, again, just about perfectly matches a human swimmer.”
This is where it is important to not just go by the Mansi photo but the entire encounter, which included other eyewitnesses. If you believe Mansi is lying then the whole thing is a hoax. If you think she’s basically telling the truth, as I do, then her description of the object and its actions doesn’t match a swimmer at all.
Mansi said she “threw away” (did not “lose”) the negatives, and I have no reason to doubt her. In a way, it doesn’t matter: if there’s no negative, there’s no negative and we can only go by her story. If she is lying or hoaxing, this is terrible news for the “best evidence” for lake monsters.
“There is something so characteristically “real” about the shine of (what could be) the neck in the Mansi photo – it seems like what the sun looks like glistening off any sea mammal, such as a sea lion.”
Or a tree trunk or log, or anything else that has just come out of the water. Test this yourself, and you’ll find that just about anything can make that same sunlight pattern.
How many tree trunks do you know that “just come out of water?” I don’t know any animate logs.
joe levit Says: “How many tree trunks do you know that “just come out of water?” I don’t know any animate logs.”
Actually, it is not uncommon. In my book Lake Monster Mysteries I give a clear and detailed explanation of how a log can rise to the surface, move around, and then sink within a few minutes. I quote British hydrographic expert Jerry Monk who says that logs can and do act “exactly as Mansi described.”
Well, looks like I have some research to do.
I’m skeptical of the “log” explanation – isn’t that usually from gas activity in deeper areas? Have “log” phenomena like that been documented in rather shallow areas like where the photo was taken? I wouldn’t think the pressure in shallow areas like that would be sufficient to cause phenomena like that.
And I’m not sure that the Mansi photo is still the “best evidence”, you now have the echolocation recordings. It’s interesting, in my opinion, that they are both from the same site.
shovethenos Says:”I’m skeptical of the “log” explanation.”
It would be wise to withhold your skepticism until you have read my research on the Mansi sighting, which is the most detailed, complete, scientific, and thorough done by anyone to date.
“And I’m not sure that the Mansi photo is still the “best evidence””
Numerous books and virtually every cryptozoologist I know has stated that Mansi’s photograph is the best evidence for lake monsters and Champ specifically.
“…you now have the echolocation recordings. It’s interesting, in my opinion, that they are both from the same site.”
In my book I explain why the sonar soundings are poor evidence, and there is no way to know if the readings are from the same site, unless Shovethenos knows more about where Mansi took the photo than Mansi does!
youcan….-
Interesting photos. One of the eels pictured on the snopes link actually has an underbite similar to the Nahuelito pic, but it probably wouldn’t be able to hold itself out of the water like what’s pictured. (I’m basically sure the Nahuelito photo is a hoax at this point.)
The “pleiosaur”-like picture is interesting. I couldn’t find anything more about it on the Norfanz site. But it looks like a fish with a weird snout, you can see large eyes up by what would be the “shoulder” of a pleiosaur.
The Norfanz site has something else that is cryptozoologically significant. They brought up a magalodon tooth, there’s a picture of it off one of the links on the orange tab. I wonder if they have had it dated. There have been relatively recent sitings of really large sharks that some people have theorized could be surviving megalodons.
Mr. Radford-
I’m not going to buy your book. If you want to discuss this, explain why you think the echolocation recordings are poor evidence. If you want to advertise, go buy it like everyone else.
I’ll get around to reading your article. Although you could quickly answer the question as to whether “log bursting to the surface” phenomena often occurs in shallow water, especially in Lake Champlain. It would take about as much time as snarky comments.
And as far as “site” is concerned, I meant the same location – Lake Champlain. It is one contiguous body of water.
shovethenos says, “I’m not going to buy your book. If you want to discuss this, explain why you think the echolocation recordings are poor evidence.”
I wasn’t asking you to buy my book; I was simply suggesting that you read up on the evidence for the log theory before dismissing it out of hand. The specific information you are asking about was published well over a year ago in Fortean Times magazine, in addition to my book. As for the echolocation, it would take several paragraphs to explain it, and I’ve written it elsewhere and don’t have the time or space to repeat it here.
“Although you could quickly answer the question as to whether “log bursting to the surface” phenomena often occurs in shallow water, especially in Lake Champlain.”
My understanding is that the process by which a log will surface and then sink again can happen in most bodies of water; I don’t know of anything that would prevent that in Champlain. I will also remind you that while the north area of the lake tends to be relatively shallow, we don’t know where the photo was taken and therefore don’t know how deep or shallow it was.
“It would take about as much time as snarky comments.”
What you consider to be a snarky comment I see as simply pointing out a contradiction in what you wrote. You cannot possibly know whether the Mansi sighting was the same site as the echolocation readings. Don’t get huffy at me for pointing out your logical error.
And as far as “best evidence” is concerned: The Mansi photo may be more dramatic, but the echolocation recording may deliver more scientific evidence that one can form a scientific opinion about.
If the recordings were unquestionably produced by an animal, we can unquestionably state that an animal that produced echolocation resided in Lake Champlain at that time. The identification issue is more contentious, but if an echolocation expert states that it is echolocation and that it doesn’t fit the profile of any known echolocator, then it is very likely that you are dealing with an unidentified animal that echolocates.
The logical error is yours, you’re making a false assumption. I didn’t state that the location of the Mansi photo was the same site as the echolocation recording, I said that the Mansi photo and the echolocation recording were gathered at the same site – meaning Lake Champlain, as opposed to the dozens, if not hundreds of sites around the world where cryptid sea or lake “monsters” have been sighted.
“the echolocation recording may deliver more scientific evidence that one can form a scientific opinion about.”
I hope you’re right, but so far the sonar that was gathered at Champlain is just as ambiguous as other sonar evidence for other lake monsters.
“If the recordings were unquestionably produced by an animal, we can unquestionably state that an animal that produced echolocation resided in Lake Champlain at that time.”
I don’t know of any scientific test that could “unquestionably” prove that a given sound is from an organic source. Perhaps the studies, once published, will show that!
“I didn’t state that the location of the Mansi photo was the same site as the echolocation recording, I said that the Mansi photo and the echolocation recording were gathered at the same site…”
Oh, I see. My mistake.
I should have understood that when you wrote “site” you meant “the entire lake.” Usually “site” suggests a specific, localized area.
In order for your suggestion to be valid, you’d have to get a representative sample of lakes that do NOT supposedly have mysterious creatures to see if similar echolocation appears in those lakes as well. You need a baseline for comparison, not just a few anomalous, ambiguous readings. Correlation does not imply causation.
“My understanding is that the process by which a log will surface and then sink again can happen in most bodies of water; I don’t know of anything that would prevent that in Champlain. I will also remind you that while the north area of the lake tends to be relatively shallow, we don’t know where the photo was taken and therefore don’t know how deep or shallow it was.”
Then how can you possibly come to an even ballpark estimate of the size of the object in the picture?
It seems like you want your assumptions to be accepted when they support your observations, but then want to ignore your own assumptions when it appears they may harm other parts of your theory or theories.
In “America’s Loch Ness Moster” I think it was, you claimed to identify as closely as possible where the photo was taken. From that show it was implied that you thought it was pretty close to the actual location. Do you think the show created a false impression?
“I should have understood that when you wrote “site” you meant “the entire lake.” Usually “site” suggests a specific, localized area.”
Come on, you’re intentionally being obtuse here. We’re talking about what’s alleged to be at least a moderately sized carnivorous animal that hunts fish and whatever else throughout the lake. I don’t think anyone thinks that the definition of “site” in this case should be limited to a swimming pool sized area around where the Mansi photo was taken.
“Then how can you possibly come to an even ballpark estimate of the size of the object in the picture?”
The depth of the water and the location of the photo have nothing to do with estimating the size of the creature, as you would know had you read my research and experiments on the topic.
I’m genuinely happy to discuss this topic and respond to informed criticism, but I don’t have time to explain several years of research and many articles to people who haven’t taken the time to be fully informed about the topic.
“It seems like you want your assumptions to be accepted when they support your observations, but then want to ignore your own assumptions when it appears they may harm other parts of your theory or theories.”
I have no idea what this means, and I have to sign off on the topic for now, as I’m off to Loch Ness this weekend.
Ok – Cooloff time. There was a genuine misunderstanding when shovethenos refered to the entire lake and Benjamin understood shovethenos as meaning very close to the Mansi sighting site.
Benjamin (37) explained that “usually” ‘site’ was more specific than an entire lake – a case which may be more “usual” to Benjamin than shovethenos.
Let’s stop the banter about advertising and explaining years of research in a comments column. Personally, I’m happy to hear Benjamin’s insights as presented because I’m totally new to this cryptid and they come across as a good summary introduction.
Equally, I like to hear shovethenos’ retorts because they’re keeping up a healthy debate and getting the rest of us readers to open our minds to alternate possibilties.
End of my rant. Hopping off soapbox 😀
Benjamin – thanks for clarifying that other eyewitnesses support Mansi. And (24) your point is valid – the photo alone could be of nearly anything.
shovethenos – you provide interesting feedback on the Norfanz site. You could put the question to them about the tooth.
Chris.
Back to lifting heads out of water (referred to in the Champ discussion on the Nahuelito thread).
After reading that article, be sure to follow its link to the video.
Again, granted, this critter doesn’t lift its head so much as push against the ground in order to lift its body, but we’re getting very close.
I noticed the mode changing here where everyone is being more serious and I like that…thinking over their observations and wording. Very good. I don’t have to drag-on any further or pick apart a far point of white that stands out. From a bird’s eye view and the strike of a match, I’ve seen enough. You are all giving it your best and I’ve picked up some pointers.
Chris thanks for directing us over here……Buzz
“I have no idea what this means, and I have to sign off on the topic for now, as I’m off to Loch Ness this weekend.”
Then I’ll explain it again:
I asked whether the “log being pushed up by gases” phenomenon happens often in relatively shallow water where the pressure is lower, like where the Mansi photo was taken. You basically said “we can’t be sure of the depth”.
But then in your appearance in a show on Champ, I think it was “America’s Loch Ness Monster”, you said you were at the point closest to where you could determine the photo was taken and you were wading in relatively shallow water.
So the contradiction is this:
(1) In the context of a discussion of whether the “gas driven log” phenomenon can occur in shallow water where the pressure is lower you state that “we can’t determine the depth”.
(2) In the context of a televised overview of your photo analysis where you allege you are as close to where the object was in the picture as possible you wind up wading in relatively shallow water.
So whether “we can’t determine the depth” or “the depth is relatively shallow” seems to change depending on which point you are arguing. This is why I mentioned your assumptions changing in my above post.
good photo