Nesski’s Other Images?
Posted by: Loren Coleman on September 21st, 2012
Nick had the one photo. Here are some others.
Lyudmila Emelyanova, Moscow State University Associate Professor of Biogeography. Picture: The Siberian Times
This photograph, from the Siberian Times, said to be the head of the underwater beast, is being used as evidence to prove the existence of a Siberian Loch Ness monster
Echo sounding device data of the underwater object in lake Labynkyr, with travelers drawing in red what they imagined the creature could have looked like. Pictures: veslo.ru
For more on the reports of the “Siberian Loch Ness Monster” (a relatively silly name), see here and here.
What do you think?
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.
Well, the photograph is pretty much useless. that shape could be anything for all we know.
The sonar reading is far more interesting, although the drawing made by an over-imaginative member of the research team questions the level of objectivity maintained in the study.
Having said all that, I’ve always been fascinated by tales of lake monsters coming from Russia, and I also found interesting how in that country it’s the scientists the ones supporting the case for these beings, in contrast with what happens in the West.
So, I’m open to be surprised by startling news of a new Cryptozoological discovery. I just hope they christen the beast with a better name 😉
Yeah, the sonar is better. Big sturgeon.
Hmmm. Siberia? A big sturgeon? Ya, think?
Chico, I’m agreeing with you. (Didn’t see your post.)
Glancing at the surface photo my first thought was: Probably should’ve called it, “Siberian Yeti standing in a lake…?” However, after reading the Daily Mail article and reviewing the “echo sounding device data”, I’m even less impressed.
The sonar equipment used – specifically a “PiranhaMAX 215″ – is not, by any means, a high-tech unit. In fact, according to the Humminbird website, it is one of their entry-level “fish finders” with a 4.0″ diagonal, 4-level Grayscale screen, featuring 160v x 132h pixel resolution and retailing for $130.00. Contrast that to their flagship 1100 Series which feature 10.4″ diagonal, 65,000-color displays with 600v x 800h pixels and side-scan capability, at a cost of $2,800.00!
Given the limitations of her low-res equipment, I find Dr. Emeliyanova’s statement that the “object was very dense (and) of homogeneous structure,” to be quite (unscientifically) unequivocal! First, the unit’s low power, coupled with the depth of the purported contact(50-55m), makes any conclusions regarding the object’s density/homogeneity open to interpretation. Secondly, Dr. E’s pronouncement that the contact was, “Surely not a fish nor shoal of fish…” is equally absurd. Why the large contact must be an unknown “monster” and not a large fish – the Sturgeon (max size: 24 feet & 3,400lbs) immediately comes to mind – makes me wonder if the good Doctor is not just simply trolling for additional funding! Finally, the aforementioned limitations of the PiranhaMAX 215 makes the purported “drawings” of the creature, featured in the article, downright ludicrous!
Further speculation (not directly attributed to Dr. Emeliyanova – or anyone else, for that matter!) that the creatures may be surviving ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs or, even, “relic killer whales” simply show the ignorance of the individual proposing those candidates; all were/are air-breathing animals and their frequent surfacings to breathe would not allow them to remain “hidden” for long!
While there may be a large, unknown, aquatic species living in Lake Labynkyr, the knee-jerk conclusion that it must be some type of “Loch Ness Monster” (which, incidentally, has itself yet to be scientifically “proven” to exist) and not simply a large fish, such as a Sturgeon, escapes me.
Occam’s razor, people!
(To wit: All other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones.)
The photo looks like a bird flying across the water.
I think it is possible that the Nesski exists, but this picture will not prove it!!
I think this is a confusion of a few things going on here!! The sonar is either a large fish such as a sturgeon or maybe a school of fish. The photo is obviously some debris or floating wood, you know the usual things it always turns out to actually be.
On the other hand, I would be absolutely amazed if there was an unknown large animal/mammal swimming in that lake, the same goes for Loch Ness. It seems there is way more money made from the likes of this than the value of evidence given.
Catch one and then we’ll believe you, a crappy photo and a cartoon aquatic dinosaur drawing on a sonar is not enough proof, if even any. Back to the drawing boards guys, but hey, ye might still make some more money from the tourists. 🙂