Breaking News: Nahuelito Photographed
Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 17th, 2006
Cryptozoologist Scott Corrales of Inexplicata is sharing that the latest photographs of a famed Lake Monster of Argentina has surfaced on April 15, 2006.
Giving as a source El Cordillerano Edicion of Argentina for Monday, April 17, 2006, the article translated is "The Latest Photo of Lake Nahuel Huapi Monster." Here’s Corrales’ text, from Spanish to English:
Photos were left behind by anonymous reader at the newsroom
The man came to our newsroom, spoke to the receptionist and left her an envelope with three photos and a note that read: "This is not a tree trunk with a capricious shape. This is not a wave. Nahuelito showed his face. Lake Nahuel Huapi, Saturday, April 15, 9 a.m. I’m not giving my personal information to avoid future headaches." We are presenting the images. Let each one reach his/her own conclusions.
This translation is copyrighted 2006 Scott Corrales, with special thanks to Ricardo Lopez Rende.
The creature of Nahuel Huapi Lake in Argentina and Patagonia is called Nahuelito. This cryptid is sometimes referred to as the Patagonian plesiosaur, the story of which first attracted press coverage in the 1920s, though sightings date back well into the previous century. Please see here, pages 119-121 and 294-295, for more on the sightings of Nahuelito.
See below, the two photographs.
About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct).
Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015.
Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.
fake
The first obvious problem with these photographs any skeptical critic is going to point out is that there are no other objects to use as reference points for size.
Another thing that I would point to is the obvious loop of body/neck immediately behind the head in the first photo. If this is a plesiosaur type creature, that seems to be come unnecessary contortion of the neck. If it is a snake/serpent type creature, the loop is still wrong for a snake’s swimming motion, which is a side to side undulation, not unlike their movement on land.
The one snake motion I can think of off the top of my head that might result in a somewhat similar contortion would be that of a sidewinder rattlesnake.
The fact that the “mouth” is open in both images is also somewhat strange. This could also be used by the skeptical as proof of a model or odd shaped log. But if one considers that this might be some sort of aggressive territorial display then both the open mouth and unnatural contortions of the body might make more sense.
Right now my conclusion is “need more data.”
My first impression is that its a fake. When I look at the two images the angle of the head relative to the neck hasnt changed. I will say it appears to be a real object in the water as evidenced by the nice shadow in picture two.
The photo has elements of miniature photography: the foreground water seems to be out of focus which means, i am guessing, that the object is rather close to the shore/cameraman (like 4 feet). If this is the case, the object is tiny.
But if this is a real cryptid, who knows whether its undulations are vertical, horizontal or both?
What about the third photo, for comparison?
Indeed. One never knows how a true cryptid might move. Although it doesn’t seem an efficient way to move, any way I can figure it, I’m not an expert in kinesiology, and I’ll leave that to those more qualified to offer an opinion than myself.
The one thing that disturbs me though is that the vertical undulations are just a little TOO reminiscient of those seen on sea serpents in old mariner’s maps (you know, next to markers reading “Here there be dragons”).
To me, it blatantly looks like a model taken on the shore line : notice the size of the waves… They indicate, to me, a small model.
-Jos
PS my friend that just walked in as I’m writing this message said ‘I’ve seen better stuff on Worth1000.com ‘
An obvious fake – if you look in the first photo, it is close to shore as there is a rise in water at the bottom of the photo like a wave about to break.
The second photo gives it away properly, if you look you can see the stones and i mean stones of the lake bottom, either those are massive boulders or this was taken close to shore, also notice the swell line once again in front of the “creature”.
regretably just another fake which only hinders real cryptozoology not helps it.
additionally the eye looks hollow in the first photo.
Come on guys! Why even bother posting this? This is obviously a fake! Real creatures don’t move through the water in this silly, snakey, loopy, way.
so where is the third photo?!
For those who read Spanish, here’s the original article.
That link looks like it’s only good for today. I can’t find any link to the archives, either. I’ve checked the Nacíonal and the story wasn’t picked up outside Rio Negro. You might want to save it locally if you want to read it at leisure.
My Spanish isn’t good enough to pick up on subtleties of tone, but it’s worth pointing out that the article is on the Society page (e.g., “Lifestyle” in most U.S. papers), and appears above an article about another cryptid, a certain oviparous lagomorph who appears around this time of year. So, I don’t think anyone’s taking these images too seriously.
Fakey McFakerson.
Good call on the blurry foreground, ancient_robot. Definitely looks very close to the camera to me. Miniature model, I’d say.
At least the hoaxer went to the trouble of posing it in two different positions.
Excellent comments. I didn’t want to bias people with my opinion. But I couldn’t agree with you more!
RocketSeason #10 – Questionable photos like these are valid for a couple of reasons:
1~ We all need practice in observation, analysis and critique.
2~ What if this creature is a small juvenile swimming just off-shore?
And again, how do we know that “real cryptids” don’t move thru the water in “silly, snakey, loopy, ways”?
We have to at least consider all the possibilities, eh?
who cares about Nahuelito, what about those fantastic shots of the bright yellow were-rabbit and its army of children at the same link? those pictures are much more convincing.
“Seaweed”?…..an obvious photo of a Sasquatch swimming the backstroke….
seeing is believing….
Creatures from the Fat lagoon….
Results are in…poor cut and paste. The inside of the mouth is darker than the back ground. It should be the same and also create a slight glare too. I also found touch up spots in the water reflection and places they didn’t finish airbrushing…..NEXT!
Examination time involved took 8 minutes and 4 sips of Foster’s Lager.
Fuzzy #16 –
Good call, I guess I came at this from the wrong angle.
the Ely sasquatch video is a good example of how fake evidence can confuse and downplay serious research. The second half of the video which has just recently re-surfaced, is more than enough proof of the hoax, but the damage has already been done and people are confused and led to believe something may be true.
I guess I am just angry at hoaxers.
and I am baseing my “silly, snakey” comment on the fact that no other animal on earth can swim in the water in such a way. Science doesn’t support the validity of this photo.
Occam’s razor says fake. If there were landscape features to judge scale by comparison, then we could meaningfully analyse it. As it is..
Science doesn’t support the bumblebee’s flight abilities, either ~ but they fly!
And Occam’s Razor sometimes sliceth too much!
Too bad these weren’t in the Wizards of the Coast photo contest! Might have snagged honorable mention…
In all sincerity, what’s the deal with people who “hang out” at cryptozoology sites? It seems that every eyewitness description or every photo is greeted with a knee-jerk “Fake”, reaction.
If anything, you think you might expect people interested in this area to be a little mor gullible than they should be–not less. If you go to the typical UFO site, you’re going to find people all too willing to believe a photo or a description is really, most likely an alien ship. I don’t personally believe in aliens, but I can understand why someone with that bent might frequent that type of website. i’m particularly unimpressed with varios analyses of why certain photos are fake> Of course, if you proclaim all cryptozoological photos as fakes, you’re certainly never going to be fooled!
Where are the crypto true-believers? Honestly, it’s not that I’d want any fake to be accepted as real-its just that the general instant reaction makes me wonder what kind of people are drawn to this topic? It’s not just here, it seems to be the case on virtually all crypto sites.
I say this not so much in reaction to this particular topic, (because they may be fake) but just something I’ve always noticed and wondered about.
I would expect to see more openminded reflection at the “skeptic” sites. I really wonder if this Topic had been posted on one of those professional sceptic sites whether the reaction would have been any different–but that’s true about many posts here.
This is all very ironic because if you check, you’ll see a very strong resemblance between these photos and Frank Searles 1972 Nessie Photos.
You know it may be that what really happens is that a scientific, objective deliberate analysis of items posted here takes place and it is just that after such analyses, the judgement is made that 99 and 44/100 percent of everything is a mistaken identification or a fake–but I’m skeptical :0)
I am really disappointed to see these photos get a link on Cryptomundo. They are obvious fakes. I could shoot a more convincing photo in my bathtub with a rubber ducky.
Please don’t treat us as if we are complete idiots who will believe anything.
Show some worthiness as an editor and get rid of obvious hoaxes like this before you subject us to it.
It simply makes Cryptomundo look like fools for showing it. Causing you to lose any credibility you may have had.
And to the hoaxer’s …
Get a license for photoshop and learn it you’ll do much better trying to look like a bigshot.
Although I am no scientist nor a photo analyst or even an expert on reptilian life only a big fan of life on Earth, both known and more so, unknown. But I have noticed in the first photo two things, first of which is this animal seems to have “Red eye” and I think that comes from something alive and second the second hump (third behind head) seems to be undulating for propulsion as known aquatic/land reptiles do. But bottom line need more data but keeping an open mind.
With all due respect to rcollins, part of what Cryptomundo is here for is to discuss breaking news and what is happening. I would rather “show” you what is being disseminated as new Lake Monster photos than place a hundred words here trying to explain them and tell you the story behind them. If something happens, we need to report it here, no matter what the final outcome is, because even the hoaxes impact cryptozoology.
Wow big E, i didnt even notice that red eye thing. And as for the photo, is the monster supposed to be moving or sitting still? Because I sure don’t seee any ripples being emitted from the monster if its moving.
@saintly,
The skepticism often displayed in this forum is a good thing, simply because logic would suggest that skeptics are right about this stuff (though they may not be).
The thing in that photo doesn’t look like an anatomically correct animal to me…even for a cryptid. It just looks like a model. But not only does it look fake, it looks like a bad fake.
I’m always amazed at how weak the hoaxes – or the photos that I deam to be hoaxes – end up being. Nowadays, it’s not that difficult to fake a cryptid photo if you have the right gear; I’ve faked cryptid photos myself for kicks, and although they’re not perfect, they’re okay for a few minutes’ work. Accordingly, I’d expect someone who really wanted to pull one over on the public to put some real work into it.
So the real question is not why are there so many skeptics here, but why are the hoaxes always so poor?
Incidentally, I agree that they look like Frank Searles’s 1972 Nessie Photos, and that’s because I’d say they’re fakes too.
Hey by the way, are there any marine-cryptid photos that you folks believe are authentic?
This is a fake.
First, no one has ever shown why any creature would swim in a vertical looping motion that thrusts the neck/body out of the water. It simply makes no physical or biological sense for any creature to move in this way.
Second, the water patterns/waves indicate that this is really quite a small object. I suspect a model set up for different photos with different amounts showing. the fixed angle of the head to neck and open mouth make this pretty clearly a non-living entity.
it’s real.
obviously.
What indicates a hoax to me is the fixed position of the figure. The head/neck and first hump are in the exact same positions in both pictures, in the second one the figure has just been placed lower in the water.
Another fault is the anatomy – the figure seems to have a lower jaw longer than the upper jaw, and I really haven’t seen that configuration before, especially in what are usually viewed as the likely suspects to be surviving sea/lake monsters.
“Nahuelito has shown his face” – I bet the guy nearly wet himself writing that.
saintly-
Regarding skepticism: A lot of the people that hang out at cryptozoology sites are skeptics. Some, like myself, believe that in some cases there is a high likelihood that something is actually out there, but realize there are a lot of hoaxsters and professional skeptics out there so any evidence must be thoroughly, objectively, and vigorously analyzed. This is to weed out the hoaxsters and beat the professional skeptics to the punch to hopefully, eventually arrive at some supportable conclusions about some of these situations.
fuzzy-
I agree with your general thoughts on Occam’s Razor, too often it is used as the “because I said so” refuge for bad theories and arguments, only with an additional veneer of scientific jargon.
ZenBug-
The Mansi photo of Champ is one that I have found pretty convincing. It was taken during the seventies and it pretty clearly shows the musculature in the twist of the creature’s neck. I don’t think that’s something that even a committed hoaxster would think of or be able to hoax, especially back then. That, taken together with the recent echolocation recordings, the footage that was taken last summer and obtained by Good Morning America, and the other footage that was taken a couple summers ago tend to indicate that there is a strong possibility that something is there.
To me, this resembles some of the lower-budget fakes from Loch Ness. If it’s legit, I’d want an explanation for the strange thickness of the creature’s underjaw, extending well back from the open mouth into the neck area. Looks like someone used too much clay while modeling–but it could be the biggest chin since Jay Leno.
Come on people… If it is a real living creature then it is an anaconda or some type of modern day serpent. People photograph the serpents and feed to the whole legend. I can throw my baby Boa into my bathtub and get the same effect… ill call it NESSY !
Notice the first and second hump, appears to be the same shape as an automobile tire and neither change shape as the monster drops down. Looks like it’s being pulled down, also the neck looks like a downspot from flexible tubing, and the head appears to be box shaped, and fastened with duct tape. Cheap looking monster, low budget antics.
fuzzy, science doesn’t say bumblebees cant fly. and why would it? bumblebees do fly.
WhooOOoo! 36 entries so far! Haven’t had this much fun since Larry lost his lips!
“Fascinating” (Spock) that every time we start at the top and read ’em all the way down again, they interpret differently! Each new entry contains bits of truths, faults, opinions, theories, speculations, dogma and knee-jerk pontifications ~ and each colors the next, and the collected views color the whole.
Above all, we must keep an open view, remembering that we cannot prove a negative, unless, like ZenBug #29, we are its creator!
What great Blog!
@shovethenos,
Yeah, that Champ photo is my top contenter too. That’s the one where it’s looking backward and you can see the sun gleaming off its neck, right?
Although as I recall, the woman who took the photo claims she lost the negatives…and didn’t there appear to be a series of dots all over the image, as if it were on a TV screen? I thought that had raised some doubt about it at one time.
Interseting chain ~ my #22 bumblebee comment, then hu6h #posts a link to an article succinctly disproving it, and the link contains this comment: “In some sense, the story has done its share to inspire further research.”
Ain’t that what it’s all about?
With all due respect to Scott Corrales, this is typical of his “reporting,” which I have criticized in the past. Corrales does a real service in bringing otherwise less-accessible Spanish-language news stories to the table, but at the same time I believe he does a real disservice by making little or no effort to point out the many red flags (anonymous photographer, etc.)
I don’t expect a skeptical report from Corrales, but real journalists bring some skepticism to the topic they cover, whether it’s politics or cryptozoology. They don’t simply uncritically repeat whatever is told to them. To use a political analogy, this is what Fox News does, simply repeating Bush administration press releases with little or no critical analysis.
That said, of course this (almost certainly faked) photo deserves to be seen and discussed, as it is de facto part of the Nahuelito story, just as other faked and misidentified photos are part of other monster lore.
ps. To all those who say you can’t prove a negative– of course you can! Somebody failed Logic 101. You just can’t prove a UNIVERSAL negative, which is not the same thing. For example, I can prove that Bigfoot does not exist in my office right now, or in my coffee cup.
The undulating or spiraling shape of the “neck” is quite suggestive of the way a tree root grows in rocky soil. Dig up a root, throw it in the water – instant cryptid!
I can’t say that I’ve ever seen a real, living dinosaur or a Nessie-type sea serpent so I’m not sure that I could say what a real one should look like.
But I have seen plenty of photos of bodies of water from various distances and how things like people and boats look in comparrison.
My initial reaction is that it’s a fake with some obvious blending on the water around the target to disguise the effort.
It has in common all the traits of a picture that wants to be something that it’s not.
An obvious hoax. The images show a rigid model. in the lower photograph, the model is submerged more than in the upper photo to give the impression that the animal has lowered its head, but even casual examination shows that there has been no chage in the rigid shape & position of the head & “humps”
I agree that it appears to be a model which has simply been positioned downwards in the second photo, but I am also intrigued by what looks to me like water dripping off the head in the second photo. I don’t see how that would be possible with a model.
Yeah, as much as I’m diggin’ the concept, these pics look a little too fakey to me. Not a bad job, but could’ve been so much better. And for the record, I agree with Loren’s position that the posting of such “maybe it is maybe it ain’t” photographic “evidence” is perfectly relevant on this site. Who better to help sort out the fact from the fiction than the ones with the open minds? More pleeze! 🙂
re: #24 “saintly”
Actually, what I see here is good, critical analysis of a photo. I believe in the possibility of undiscovered animals. That does NOT mean that I’m naive. I’d say the same goes for most crypto-afficianados.
Go over to one of the “Skeptic” sites and my guess is you’ll see a lot more vitriol thrown about (especially towards anyone who might believe in the reality of said images)
As for the zeal of saucer fanatics, it is comparing apples and oranges. I’m very interested in saucers and the abduction phenomenon, but there you often have a lot of people with almost religious zeal about the topic. The “believe” with deep faith, in something they have never seen and abduction scenarios are rife with religious overtones. But in any discussion of that, you have the zealots on either side ready to skewer you. Go in with an open mind and discussing the hard evidence such as burned rings and you are skewered by the skeptics as “gullible”. Talk about the similarities between so many accounts and other psycho-sexual phenomenon through the ages (incubi, changelings, etc.), the fact that scientist have triggered altered states similar to abduction phenomenon with electrical impulses, or anything other than the highly unlikely “little grey man from Alpha Centauri stuck a probe up my butt” and you are attacked with more venom than Pat Robertson directs at Democrats.
Cryptozoologist, by and large, aren’t debunkers or zealots. They are seekers of the truth and I commend Loren and co. for hosting one of the few intelligent forums for such discussion on the web.
For those that may be interested, perhaps this is the kind of evidence were looking for- Anyone familiar with Muckie the muckrose lake monster from ireland? I know i wasnt before i stumbled upon this sonar evidence? What you think?
Jeremy Well wrote that:
“Go over to one of the “Skeptic” sites and my guess is you’ll see a lot more vitriol thrown about (especially towards anyone who might believe in the reality of said images)”
This is only one of many myths about skeptics; it’s amazing how often skeptics are accused of being closed-minded, dismissive, and hateful. That may be true in a few instances, but I think if people actually READ what the skeptics say, instead of ASSUMING they know what the skeptics say, they might be surprised at how cordial, respectful, and open-minded most skeptics are.
There are hostile, dismissive, close-minded people on all sides of the issue.
RE comment # 48
Indeed, there are contentious people on all sides of an issue.
This particualr comment was in regards to another comment about the folks commenting on this site being overly dismissive.
I am not lumping all skeptics together as hateful and dismissive disciples of James Randi. In fact, I put myself in the camp of skeptic.
What I was addressing was the polarization of opinions we often see on web-sites that cater to one group or another. It is easy, in those cases, for even jokes to get out of hand. After all, we are discussing things with the like-minded, right? Why not make a little fun of the “others”.
If anything, what I was getting at is that one of the things I enjoy about this site is that I feel free to be an open minded critic, and when a photo is criticized, it seems to me it is done out of love for the field rather than the with the zeal one sees in a bullying child kicking over anothers sand castle.
I think it’s pretty impressive. Especially the way the water comes out of the mouth. The creature is expelling water. I of fakes or models don’t even go the distance of making an open throat. And the second photo looks like the creature closed its mouth. Again, models and fakes rarely, if ever, are clever enough to have open and shut mouths.
I think we need to give this one a closer look.
I am not saying it’s genuine. But it is intriguing.
BG