Sasquatch Coffee


New Ogopogo Sighting: A Photographic Update

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 5th, 2011

Photographic evidence of the recent sighting has surfaced. What do you think? Is it Ogopogo, a big fish, a wake, or a mistake? You be the judge.

Cryptomundian rackliff tipped us off to the fact that David Woetzel had posted the following photographs of this purported encounter to his facebook page.

New Ogopogo Sighting

Wake Picture. Note boats moored on shore.

The above photo was taken after the creature had submerged. But the wake it left behind was pretty impressive.William J Gibbons

New Ogopogo Sighting

zoomed out

===
Bill Gibbons also adds:

1. We did not set out to find Ogopogo on a short trip onto the lake. We were hoping to visit a few well-known “hotspots” in order to plan out a later expedition.

2. The film only shows the wake left by the creature. However, I did observe 3-4 humps just above the waves, which were darker than the waves themselves. Dorsal ridge was also clearly visible on the humps as I was focusing on the humps with a pair of binoculars. Dave Woetzel and my son, Andrew, may have briefly observed the head of the creature for a few seconds just above the waves.

3. The film shot by David Woetzel and the subsequent (still) images were remarkably similar to the Fletcher photo of an alleged Ogopogo, taken in 1976 and featured on page 111 of Arlene Gaal’s book, ‘in Search of Ogopogo.’

4. We have absolutely no interest in selling the film to the “highest bidder,” or seeking any further publicity outside the cryptozoological community, although a subsequent frame-by-frame of the Woetzel film may be conducted at a later time.

5. This was not a sturgeon (or two sturgeons), salmon, trout, krill, otters, or waves from a boat, etc. I have fished extensively in rivers, streams, lakes, the sea and all over the world. I have seen sizable fish and sharks of all kinds, not to mention crocodiles, hippos and elephants, etc in Africa. I have even seen monkeys swimming across a river in the Congo. The Lake Okanagan observation was unlike anything I had ever seen before.

6. The disturbance and sizable waves we observed were generated by an animate object directly from underneath the surface in flat clam conditions. The waves were at least 1.5 feet high and dissipated after the animal submerged 10-12 seconds later.

7. We did not advertise this sighting but only reported it to Arlene Gaal and John Kirk (who has seen Ogopogo 11 times in the past), [as well as Loren Coleman, of course].

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. 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.


54 Responses to “New Ogopogo Sighting: A Photographic Update”

  1. Redrose999 responds:

    Is it me, or is the wake only going in one direction? If something submerged wouldn’t the wake go out in several directions?

  2. Macleod responds:

    Waves, cool.

  3. Asphalt Prophet responds:

    sweet… it’s the loch ness wave!

  4. Greg102 responds:

    To any person with common sense and objectivity, will see that it is obviously a wake. How can they claim this is a legit ogopogo sighting??

    and where is the “snake-like head that broke the surface only for two or three seconds” in this photo? LOL

    Sometimes i want to give up on reading about cryptids and trying to analyze legit evidence, especially frustrated when people in the crypto community makes claims with “evidence” like this….NEXT

  5. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Ummm…looks like a typical boat wake to me…

  6. NiceGuyJon responds:

    Aren’t we past the point of understanding that a picture of nothing is just that?

  7. Surveyor responds:

    This could be the wake of anything, including a boat that just passed by before the pic was taken. There is no evidence to show that it was anything else.

  8. wolfatrest responds:

    Look guys, I’m sure you think you saw something and maybe you did, I wasn’t there. You can’t put up pictures of waves and expect others to be convinced though. What I see are waves that could have been caused by almost anything. When we were kids we used to make huge waves just by rocking the raft or boat we were on. I’m not saying that’s what you did, in fact I’m not saying that you did or didn’t see anything. However, if you want anyone else to believe you based on evidence I sincerely hope you’ve got something better than the two pics above. After all, we can see two more boats in the water and I’d imagine there were dozens more.

  9. mrdark responds:

    It’s a wake.

    Next.

  10. andyd responds:

    Been there done that, sorry these photos show nothing new. Really looking forward to the Caddy footage.

  11. bgibbons responds:

    @greg102- I am beginning to regret even sending this report in, because people like you obviously do not pay attention to what I actually wrote. Further, you were not there, so how can you pass judgement on this occurrence?

    Let me explain again in simple language.

    1. The water was flat calm.

    2. There were no boats moving on the water in any direction that could have caused any kind of disturbance directly in front of us.

    3. The disturbance occurred when a sudden upheaval of water happened immediately in front of our boat.

    4. Being close to the object allowed me to observe the back of the animal protruding slightly above the waves that it caused, eliminating the cause as a mere boat wake or a line of energetic sturgeons, etc.

    5. The head of the animal broke the surface only briefly.

    6. We did not claim our observation as “evidence.” It was simply an observation, and of a large creature that briefly broke the surface and moved rapidly away from west to east before submerging about 10-12 seconds later.

    7. To me, solid evidence constitutes physical remains or at least part of a specimen from which specific zoological data can be extracted. Only crystal clear film and photographic evidence of a cryptid is the next best thing but not conclusive.

    Finally, do try to reserve your comments to subjects that you are actually knowledgeable in. Cryptozoology, however, does not appear to be one of them.

  12. jstevens2154 responds:

    No crap its a wake!!!!! The guy said so in his description. Does anyone know how to read anymore? Really?! Yes, the pictures are a wake–go back and read now…

  13. manticora responds:

    Wow, a wave!! … a wave, nothing else… but a wave..

  14. CDC responds:

    Yeah, um, my ex wife makes a bigger wake when she sits in the bath tub…no, I don’t have any photos.

    Looks like waves flowing over rocks, at the very best.

    Matt Moneymaker says, “typical swimming squatch behavior”.

  15. slappy responds:

    wake

  16. bgibbons responds:

    @CDC – Just for the record, there were no rocks in the area where the disturbance emanated. We were in 107 feet of water.

  17. mandors responds:

    Having spent a lot of time on the water, it doesn’t look that much like a wake. An object moving independently in the water leaves a “V” trail with waves moving in equal opposite directions, unless the object is turning or rapidly decelerating. (Or of course if there’s white water.) Even a snake will leave such a wake, especially if it’s head is held above the surface. To my eye the ripples are uneven, note in the close up the crest on the left is separated by relative calm between the crest on the right. A boat wake doesn’t do that.

    To me it looks more like a wave from a cross current. You can see similar things in rivers, harbors, and lakes all the time. From the photograph the river is by no means “flat calm.” Currents can be seen on the surface, and there are bound to be subsurface currents. When currents intersect or collide they can cause upswellings of water that looks like what is shown in the picture. I unfortunately saw all too many of these waves on a vacation to Lake Champlain about seven years ago. (No, I didn’t see Champ.)

    All this said, I was not there and can not say what was in the water or what the people actually saw.

  18. Woodstock responds:

    Get a free copy of GIMP or a not-so-free copy of photoshop and tweak these photos just a bit for contrast…There looks to be more than a wake here. There looks to be a solid form in the wake with what appears to be a nice set of dorsal fins…

  19. Craig Woolheater responds:

    Woodstock, care to share your enhancements with the Cryptomundians showing us what you see?

  20. PhotoExpert responds:

    bgibbons–Thanks for sharing your photo! I think it is a very interesting photo for several reasons. Apparently, some people have not read your first hand account that accompanied your photograph. Some are brushing it off because they are not taking all the evidence into account. When analyzing evidence one must not only look at the photograph in question but also the other data which you have graciously supplied.

    I have read the details of your encounter. I find it extremely interesting. Taking both the detailed explanation and the photo, combined they make for one interesting account.

    Based solely on the photograph, I find that wave pattern different from what one normally would see as a typical boat wake. I have seen countless boat wakes in my life, especially as a former boat owner and avid fisherman. This is where some people who are just looking at the photograph make the assumption that the photo is of a normal wave. If the surface of that body of water was not flat and/or filled with boat traffic, I might agree with them that this is just a photo of a wave. However, because of your written details and the photograph backing up the flatness of the water, I would say this is an “unusual” wave pattern. Also, the fact of your detailed account must be taken into consideration. You stated the water was flat. I believe that! I not only believe that on your word but the evidence of that can be found in the background and foreground of this photo, if one took the time to actually look at the evidence. Also, your photo is not photoshopped in any way, which makes it an original picture.

    There are other things that you stated which make a lot of sense as well. I think you did a fantastic job in trying to capture on camera, something that you saw. I think your critics here are being too harsh on you. I, myself, as a professional photographer have been out on the water with my camera. Once I was in the Chesapeake Bay fishing, of course with my camera by my side. To my disbelief, I saw a seal pop it’s head out of the water about 15 feet from our boat. Three other friends were on the boat with me. Only one saw the seal and we were both in amazement. It only stayed up for about 4-5 seconds. I got my camera ready for the next time it popped it’s head up. It did, I hurriedly pointed the camera at that spot, focused and the seal submerged before I could get off a photo. I have shot high speed professional sports photographs and I could not get the camera ready and get a shot before the seal submerged. I had 4-5 seconds and could not do it as a professional in the field. You had less time but were able to get at least the wake. That is evidence in my book! Also, how can you be expected to get a shot in less time than it would take a professional photographer? You did a great job in obtaining that photo in my opinion.

    I understand why people are questioning the photo though. It only shows a wave. But if you take the photo in the context of all the evidence you presented, I would say that you have some credible evidence of something that was animate in the water that day. And it was not a small fish such as a carp, bass, etc. What you saw, I do not know. It could have been a big catfish or it could have been a sturgeon or turtle. Or it could be something else. Whatever it was, it appears to be big, at least six feet, if your lens was set in the 35mm to 50mm perspective, as is evidenced by the arm in the foreground and boats in the background.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing that photo and good job in getting close to almost capturing the entity that made those waves! I do not think amatures or nonphotographers realize how difficult it is to capture a fleeting subject on camera in a matter of seconds. Those making comments to the contrary are simply ludicrous! I applaud your effort! Again, thanks for sharing and don’t let the uneducated naysayers stop you from trying.

  21. NiceGuyJon responds:

    @bgibbons:

    “7. To me, solid evidence constitutes physical remains or at least part of a specimen from which specific zoological data can be extracted. Only crystal clear film and photographic evidence of a cryptid is the next best thing but not conclusive.”

    You need solid physical evidence even though you claim to have seen the animal with your own eyes??

  22. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    First, as an expert in using photoshop, there is nothing there other than a wake. I saw nothing with dorsal fins or anything. I think people are just matrixing what isn’t there…as in their eyes are seeing something that isn’t there because they want to see it.

    Here is the image that has been enhanced in three different ways…as you can see…there is nothing there…

  23. bgibbons responds:

    @NiceGuyJon

    “You need solid physical evidence even though you claim to have seen the animal with your own eyes??”

    You missed my point. Science does not accept eye-witness evidence for cryptids. I meant that DNA evidence would determine what Ogopogo actually is, whether it is a relic species or something entirely new. I KNOW the animal exists – proving it conclusively to the world is another matter.

  24. wolfatrest responds:

    I did read your entire article and found it very extremely interesting. I think it would have been better to just send in the description of the sighting without the photographs. To me a photograph would be included if it supports the eye witness account, sorry but I don’t see that in these pictures.

  25. bgibbons responds:

    @Kahil Nettleton

    The photos show the wake, not the animal. I never said the photos showed the creature that made the wake anywhere in my account. Furthermore, it was the second photo that was of interest, not the one you enlarged. If you have been following this thread and read my original account, you would have noticed that I did not include the photos in my initial report. They were later taken from David Woetzel’s site.

    Lastly, we observed the elongated back of a large living animal, dark green in colour and with a slight ridge visible on at least two of three humps. We did not intentionally set out to “see” a lake monster – I am merely reporting our observations, that’s it.

  26. bgibbons responds:

    @PhotoExpert – thank you for the thumbs up. It’s nice to get some positive feedback rather than just a knee-jerk reaction.

  27. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    Ok, do you see the boat wake? The lake monster was right there just before I took this picture, I swear it was!!

  28. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @ bgibbons – so where’s the picture of the creature? where’s the video of the creature? you can’t just show us a picture of a wake, tell us that there was a creature there and just expect everyone to take your word for it….not if you want to be taken seriously.

  29. CDC responds:

    @ bgibbons

    So what do you want us to do?

    Your pictues are not a clear picture of anything.

    Nice story, but even with these photos it means nothing.

    Another fish story, hear them all the time

  30. bgibbons responds:

    @khalil Nettleton and Whiteriverfisherman,

    I merely reported our observations, that’s it. I did not state that the film or photographs would support our observations. The two still images were taken from another website. If David Woetzel decides at some time to have the footage professionally analyzed, then that is entirely his decision alone to make

    As for being “taken seriously,” I am amused at your brash and thoughtless comments, which do not belong on the world’s premier cryptozoology site.

  31. Evil_Monkey responds:

    Thanks Bill for reporting your sighting to this site and sharing it with us all. I’m always curious about these lake cryptids and have enjoyed reading the detailed information that you have provided, only the lucky few ever get to see these rare and elusive creatures and I for one appreciate anyone who makes a sincere report especially when they have nothing to gain and open themselves up to all sorts of accusations.

    It saddens me however that being a longtime reader of Cryptomundo there seems to be these same old faces that have nothing but negatives to say about whatever is reported whether it be Matt Moneymaker explaining what really happened in the field in finding bigfoot or people reporting cryptid sightings, they are subjected to all sorts of accusations and ridicule from these expert armchair “cryptozoologists” that think they know best.

    I’m a skeptical person but each to their own, if I have constructive doubts I’d raise them but all you naysayers just seem to take pot shots at the poster or witness without any real purpose. Same old faces doing it post after post, may I ask why do you people come to Cryptomundo? It’s really starting to appear that for some of you its just to pick a fight or to ridicule. It’s a shame, as these threads used to be so much more constructive.

  32. sonofthedestroyer responds:

    The first photo definitely shows something. Can’t say what though. This creature has an annoying habit of keeping close to the waterline. It does not like sticking its body too far out of the water. But you can make it out. There is an awesome video on youtube that shows this. You have to concentrate, but you can just about make out the animals body.

  33. Woodstock responds:

    Well, I have to add that as a new person here, there’s a bit of a frosty feel to some of these replies to bgibbons. Seems like he has done what he could in trying to help people understand what he saw, and as for the pic – Maybe there’s more there than a casual glance can say.

    I am not an expert in creating art with photoshop and its ilk, nor am I an expert in photo analysis – Not at all. However, if you zoom in on the photo and darken the contrast just a bit, there seem to be lines of some sort. Has anyone else seen this before? I honestly have no idea.

  34. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Anything I and others have said is nothing personal against bgibbons. The problem is the growing trend of people telling sensational stories without the evidence to back it up.

    As you can see above, I enhanced the photo three different ways. The first edit I cranked the contrast all the way up. There is nothing there. Zooming in isn’t going to help at all as all it does is decrease the viewable detail, especially on an out of focus image with only a dpi of 72.

    Just because our opinion or professional conclusions aren’t what you expect or like, doesn’t mean it holds any less value and doesn’t deserve to be allowed on this site. It’d be pretty boring around here if the only comments allowed were ones that agreed with everything presented to them by any unknown source…

  35. Carumba responds:

    I’m new here. I have lived for 20 years on a lake that is 90’ deep, similar in depth to where the photo was taken. What is captured in the photo appears to be that of 2 separate wake halves colliding which have originated from 2 different boats, hence the dark shadows in the crests and the rolling turmoil. However, to slam anybody for submitting photos is uncivilized. Now I know why my brother will not approach the media about the bigfoot footprint he photographed decades ago near Mt. Katahdin. It’s really a clear photo, too. He doesn’t want the hassle, I think.

  36. Evil_Monkey responds:

    @Kahil – It doesnt bother me what peoples opinions are and I respect everyones right to hold their own view, however theres alot of negatives without any constructive input. Thanks for enhancing the photo for us even though it was already stated at the top of the page “The above photo was taken after the creature had submerged. But the wake it left behind was pretty impressive”. I agree that theres alot of sensational stories without any evidence, and I would also love to see some hard evidence but unfortunately that seems to go with the territory in this field….

  37. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Without constructive input? Seriously? What more do you want? We have not only pointed out the flaws in the story, the lack of supporting evidence, alternative explanations and reasonings. I even took the time to enhance the image to prove that there is nothing there. What we have here is someone’s story of what they think they saw and a picture of a wake. That’s it. And he wants us to just believe the story? Sorry, not going to just take someone’s word for it without supporting evidence. That’s a growing problem when it comes to all things cryptozoological. Peonple will tell tall tales and provide nothing else to support their claim. Then they get mad when others don’t believe them, provide alternative explanations and/or expect supporting evidence before taking their story as gospel.

    The point is that in cryptozoology, if you want the masses to believe your claims then you need supporting evidence. It would have been one thing if bgibbons left himself open to the very plausible alternatives, but he won’t. Instead he won’t listen to reason and provides a single lo-res image of a wake as supporting evidence. Sorry, doesn’t work like that…

  38. bgibbons responds:

    let me further expand on my earlier points to each respondent.

    @sonofthedestroyer, that film clip is very, very interesting. I would have to say that the disturbance we observed on the lake and the brief appearance of the creature was considerably more substantial. I think that people do not appreciate the fact (or do not realize), is that actually being there at the time of the occurrence, and witnessing the event first hand, allows one to clearly observe specific details firsthand. John Kirk, president of the BCSCC, has observed Ogopogo on no less than 11 occasions and has taken some pretty impressive footage to boot.

    Unfortunately for some skeptics, nothing short of a captured, live Ogopogo swimming around in the Vancouver Aquarium will suffice!

  39. bgibbons responds:

    @Carumba, thanks for your comments. The location we were at was flat calm with no boats for any considerable distance around. Plus it was getting late – 8.00pm – when most pleasure boats were off the water. The first thing we noticed was ‘fry’ leaping out of the water in all directions, followed by an UPSURGE of water – that came from directly beneath the surface. This was again immediately followed by three, possibly four, distinctive humps that I was able to observe at close range through a decent pair of binoculars.

    Before going onto the lake, I made a point of doing land-based observations of the water, where odd wave patterns, surface wind disturbances and residual boats wakes (some criss-crossing one another) were clearly observed. But the observation we made on the evening of Saturday July 2nd was absolutely none of these.

    Regarding your brother’s reluctance to go public with his Bigfoot print find, I’m beginning to know exactly how he feels!

  40. bgibbons responds:

    @Kahalil

    My replies are numbered within your comments:

    Again…so where’s the video? Where are the high res images? All we have here is a good story.

    1. The camera and the film footage are property of David Woetzel. It is entirely his decision whether or not to release the footage. Apart from this, i merely reported our observations. That’s it.

    You completely rule out every other plausible cause for what you think you saw except for Ogopogo. That is not being very open minded to reason. The fact is that until you have absolute proof of something, you cannot rule out any plausible explanation.

    2. I DID NOT say I saw Ogopogo. I saw I observed a large animate object. There are plenty of “plausible” explanations flying around on this and other forums. Again, I merely reported my observations of a large animate object at close range. I did not make any other claims nor did I state that my observations or the film footage in any way constituted “absolute proof.”

    This is a highly traveled lake. On a Saturday evening at 8pm there is no way that the water was flat and calm after a full weekend day of boat traffic. The only time you come close to seeing a flat calm lake is in the morning after a calm, not windy evening.

    3. Now you are being presumptuous. You were not there. How do you know what the surface conditions were like at Lake Okanagan on the evening of June 2nd, 20011? I stated that the surface was flat calm AT THE LOCATION OF THE SIGHTING. The surface of the lake was slightly choppy on much of the lake until we reached the location (a large area that was absolutely flat calm) where we made the sighting. Therefore, there were no other waves, surface disturbances, light reflection or boat wakes of any kind. Yes, there are other boats around even in the dark on Lake Okanagan (I observed several in an hour of land observation, close to the shore and with their running lights on), but there were no boats for any considerable distance near us. Plus, the disturbance we observed emanated directly under the surface.

    Next, this claim of seeing three or four humps and that it is from a singular creature doesn’t mesh with science or biology of any known animal, past or present. Long vertebrate animals do not ungulate up and down when moving through water. They ungulate from side to side. The only water going vertebrates that do ungulate up and down are dolphins and their kin and beavers. They certainly don’t produce three to four humps while doing so on their own.

    4. Good grief, have you done ANY research on Ogopogo AT ALL? practically every eyewitness account that has observed the creature moving on the surface have described a clear and unmistakable undulating motion. And whoever said that ogopogo was a “known” creature? This is why it is classified as a cryptid, because we DON’T know what it is (yet). Ogopogo is either a relic species of some kind, or something entirely new to science. Whatever it is, it moves in an undulating fashion according to the majority of eye-witness accounts.

    The only plausible explanations are that either you saw wakes that looked like something they weren’t or you saw multiple creatures that gave the appearance of a single creature…like fish or beavers, etc.

    5. “The only plausible explanation….” Says who? You have every right to be skeptical,. but please, let’s leave out giant mutant salmon over 30 feet long, or a row of beavers, each three feet long and weighting 60 pounds, swimming fearlessly along in 107 feet of water towards a new housing division which has been almost completely deforested.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that it has been shown that people have a very difficult time accurately judging size and distance on water. Why? The lack of reference points of known sizes. Many many stories, photos and claims have been debunked due to this. The same principle applies to our ability to judge size and distance in low light.

    6. I am a licensed Private Investigator and the owner of a growing security agency. Constant training, accurancy in observation, description, measurements, and concise detailed reporting are absolutely crucial in my field, particularly when I am called to give evidence in a court of law. I did not need a “reference” point to be able to take a reasonable guess at the length of an animate object that appeared, without warning, after a violent upsurge of water erupted barely 30 feet in front of our boat, then moved steadily from west to east before submerging completely after 10-12 seconds, leaving a substantial wake. Also, it was still sunny and clear with excellent visibility at the time.

    Anything else?

  41. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Uhhh…yes… First you butchered my name…

    Next, there is no need to “study” something when you don’t know what it is.

    Next, do your own fact checking with a biologist. Just because people claim to see something doesn’t make it so. NO vertebrate moves in the water in such a manner. It simply isn’t an efficient way to move in the water. It takes a lot more energy to undulate up and down than it does side to side. Also, vertebrates’ spines have a wider range of motion going side to side than it does up and down. Look at ever water going vertebrate out there. Again, with the exception of dolphins, porpoises, whales and beavers….all other water going vertebrates move through the water by undulating side to side…fish, snakes, alligators, crocs, etc. If Ogopogo exists, then it would make it the ONLY known vertebrate creature in existence, past and present, that moves itself through water in such a fashion. You can’t escape biology. Up and down undulating locomotion in water and produces three to four “humps” simply isn’t explainable by nature. It simply is not an efficient form of locomotion for such a creature.

    So you’re a P.I. with all kinds of training. Does that make you infallible? No, it does not. As a P.I. you should know very well that eye witness accounts are very unreliable and are seldom viable.

    So why doesn’t your friend release the video? There’s no good reason not to. You can explain away all logical alternative explanations you want. It is clear you are convinced it could only be an unknown creature such as Ogopogo. The facts are clear here…all we have is a story without any supporting evidence other than a picture that only shows a wake. And you want us to just take your word for it? Some may, but most aren’t. This seems to be a disturbing trend in the crypto world. Lots and lots of stories and nothing to back it up.

  42. bgibbons responds:

    @Kahil…

    “Next, do your own fact checking with a biologist. Just because people claim to see something doesn’t make it so. NO vertebrate moves in the water in such a manner. It simply isn’t an efficient way to move in the water. It takes a lot more energy to undulate up and down than it does side to side. ”

    1. I refer to the majority of eye-witness accounts, including some film footage that is available. Ogopogo has been observed countless times moving through the water in an undulating fashion. This however is not the problem. The fact that the animal has been reported at all countless times by people of all backgrounds spanning over a hundred years is a probelm – for you. Because they are all “unreliable,” right?

    ,”Again, with the exception of dolphins, porpoises, whales and beavers….all other water going vertebrates move through the water by undulating side to side…fish, snakes, alligators, crocs, etc.”

    2. And clearly Ogopogo is none of these.

    “If Ogopogo exists, then it would make it the ONLY known vertebrate creature in existence, past and present, that moves itself through water in such a fashion.”

    3. Then it will be something entierly new to science – which makes the who question much more interesting.

    “You can’t escape biology. Up and down undulating locomotion in water and produces three to four “humps” simply isn’t explainable by nature. It simply is not an efficient form of locomotion for such a creature.”

    4. Yet this is what thousdands of eye-witnesses have reported.
    5. Question: Do you actually believe that there is a large unknown animal or colony of animals living in Lake Okanagan at all? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.

    ” So you’re a P.I. with all kinds of training. Does that make you infallible? No, it does not. As a P.I. you should know very well that eye witness accounts are very unreliable and are seldom viable.”

    5. And men have been hanged on less evidence than their is for the Loch Ness Monster.

    “So why doesn’t your friend release the video? There’s no good reason not to.”

    6. Why don’t you ask him? His reasons are his own. Besides, he is still on vacation in Canada and will not be back in the US until next week. perhaps then he will get the footage analysed.

    ” It is clear you are convinced it could only be an unknown creature such as Ogopogo. ”

    7. Wrong. I said I observed a large animate object, which COULD have been Ogopogo.

    “The facts are clear here…all we have is a story without any supporting evidence other than a picture that only shows a wake.”

    8. And it is abundantly clear that my original report stated that the wake was made by the creature after it submerged. or didn’t you read it?

    ” And you want us to just take your word for it?”

    9. No, I never asked anyone here to believe me. I merely REPORTED my observations. Take it or leave it, period.

    “Some may, but most aren’t.”

    10. So you now speak for most of the posters here on Cryptomundo?

    ‘This seems to be a disturbing trend in the crypto world. Lots and lots of stories and nothing to back it up.”

    11. Then go look for the evidence yourself or find another interest, because quite frankly I do not believe that you are interested in answers, just an argument.

    The end.

    This seems to be a disturbing trend in the crypto world. Lots and lots of stories and nothing to back it up.

  43. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    And you refuse to listen to reason of logic and science. The fundamental flaw in all of the sightings is that they state the creature undulates up and down through the water. It is a scientific FACT that this is an ineffective form of locomotion through water. Again, there are NO large, long water going creatures now or ever that move as such. Of the creatures that do, they are only water going mammals.

    For a creature to produce three to four humps, it would have to be long, like a snake. Do snakes undulate up and down? Do any reptiles swimming do so for that matter? NOPE… Do any fish move as such and show multiple humps? NOPE…

    Next scientific fact for ya… If Ogopogo were a mammal or reptile of any kind, then they would have to make frequent trips up for air, therefore increasing the chance and likelihood of being seen by people on such a highly traveled lake. Also, both mammals and reptiles would make trips to land. Also increasing the likelihood of being seen. It would also dictate that there would be several of them as there would need to be for a stable, sustainable population.

    So, ruling out it being a mammal or reptile, then it would have to be a fish. And do fish undulate up and down through the water? NOPE… There would also be quite a few of them to be sustainable.

    Look, believe in Ogopogo if you want, but all we know about science and biology dictate that such a creature does not exist. That it could not exist. People are saying that this creature is huge. As there would have to be a good number of them, then we would have seen them. A body or something. And we haven’t. A large, water going mystery creature could only feasibly exist in a very large body of water, such as an ocean. People are seeing something that isn’t there due to miss-identification.

    Sorry bud, the likelihood of “Ogopogo” breaking the hard fastened rules/laws of science and biology are slim to none….as it would break all the rules.

    So yeah… Why hasn’t the video been released? What is the point or purpose of holding out? Ironing out the special effects?

    Again, all of this circular talk and “reporting” without proof amounts to nothing…no conclusion. The very fact that you are getting defensive proves my point that you expected everyone to just take your story and pic of a wake as proof there was some huge creature in the water splashing around and undulating in and out of the water in such a way that biology proves to be impossible.

    The only thing that will put an end to all this is proof…. “Where’s the beef?”

  44. eyecitga responds:

    Wow. I’ve waited so long to finally get on this blog, to chat with folks that I thought had the same views and hopes as I did. As this particular thread has transpired, as well as others on Cryptomundo, I just see a lot of hatred and angst being thrown around. Years ago when I only read the blogs, there seemed to be so much hope and positive talk about potential evidence, whether it was a photo, video, print, what have you. Nowadays, all I see is just folks getting slammed for offering up their experiences. Maybe we’ve become numbed by the events of the Georgia fiasco or the various hoax videos that have inundated us for the past couple of years. Yet, when something fairly believable as this particular sighting occurs, the critics come out of the woodwork like the 7 year cicadas do in the south.

    I, personally, would like to commend bgibbons for coming here and repeatedly defending what I clearly see as a report of something strange happening on Okanagan Lake. I might have just given up after getting thrashed about by a chosen few. Wish I could have witnessed the event myself. I wasn’t there and I can’t really come on here and say that it didn’t happen. Apparently some of us on here refuse to give folks the benefit of the doubt these days. Someday, someday there might just be a big dish of crow for some folks to chew on. In the meantime, lets all try to be a bit more civil in our discussions and keep hoping we get the results we’ve all been waiting for. Not trying to demean anybody here. Just wanting to get the brotherhood back in line again. We ain’t got nobody but ourselves here to hold onto when it comes to proving this thing exists and that’s not going to happen by slamming each other at a moments’ notice. bgibbons, if your friend does decide to release that video, please tell him there are some on here that would like to see if it may possibly synch up with the photos and the descriptions seen on this blog. If not, then so be it. Take care.

  45. Kopite responds:

    Look, believe in Ogopogo if you want, but all we know about science and biology dictate that such a creature does not exist. That it could not exist.Kahil Nettleton

    Boy you sure got out of bed via the grumpy scoftical side, didn’t you Kahil?

  46. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    @ Kopite – Nope, not grumpy at all. Just stating the facts that vertebrate biology doesn’t support the claims. Some people just won’t listen to reason or science. Its a simple, scientific fact that anyone willing to can checkout for themselves. I challenge anyone to show us one animal that propels itself in such a manner through water.

  47. bgibbons responds:

    @kahil nettleton – why are you even on this website?

    “And you refuse to listen to reason of logic and science.”

    1. Not all all. I prefer to keep and open mind that something new will be discovered that will (again) break the rules, or at least add an exciting new dimension to our understanding of the biological sciences. You are the one who is being closed-minded here.

    “It is a scientific FACT that this is an ineffective form of locomotion through water. Again, there are NO large, long water going creatures now or ever that move as such. Of the creatures that do, they are only water going mammals.”

    2. And how do you know that Ogopogo is not a yet-to-be-discovered species of large, lake-dwelling mammal?

    “For a creature to produce three to four humps, it would have to be long, like a snake. Do snakes undulate up and down? Do any reptiles swimming do so for that matter? NOPE… Do any fish move as such and show multiple humps? NOPE…”

    3. In March 2001, John Kirk, President of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club showed me some footage he took at Lake Oganagan of a long, serpentine creature moving rapidly along the surface of the lake in a serpentine (undulating) motion. The creature was absolutely huge and could not be mistaken for any other (known) living creature in the lake. This also corroborates countless eye-witness accounts that reported observing the animal (many at very close range) moving through the water in an identical fashion. Now, you can dismiss every eye-witness account based on your own understanding of “logic and science.”

    “Next scientific fact for ya… If Ogopogo were a mammal or reptile of any kind, then they would have to make frequent trips up for air, therefore increasing the chance and likelihood of being seen by people on such a highly traveled lake. Also, both mammals and reptiles would make trips to land. Also increasing the likelihood of being seen. It would also dictate that there would be several of them as there would need to be for a stable, sustainable population.”

    4. And once again, you ignore those reports of the animal surfacing to breath. Many reports (and film footage) have shown that the animals surface and move along with only their heads exposed. Do you think they might be replenishing their oxygen supply? And yes, land encounters have been reported.

    “Look, believe in Ogopogo if you want….”

    5. Just being open minded.

    “.. but all we know about science and biology dictate that such a creature does not exist.”

    6. Really? And what if the duck-billed platypus had remain a rare, cryptozoological enigma? When platypuses were first sent back to Europe from Australia, they were thought to be fakes, a hoax manufactured by a clever Chinese taxidermist. European scientists didn’t believe that the platypuses’ traits could all exist within one animal. Think about it. here is an animal about the size of a domestic cat, and is classified as a mammal because the mothers produce milk for their young. However, they also lay eggs, and one of only two mammals, monotremes, do that. And, the platypus combine traits that normally don’t go together, a bill like a duck, tail like a beaver, poison like a snake, eggs like a turtle and the milk that makes it a mammal. Plus the poison in its rear spurs can kill a dog. If such a detailed account came (first) from the aboriginal people, who then passed it on to European settlers, who then only reported this creature with the occasional photograph or shaky film footage decades later, would you still stand by the “rules of science and biology?” The platypus was not the first creature to break the “rules of science and biology,” and will probably not be the last.

    “Sorry bud, the likelihood of “Ogopogo” breaking the hard fastened rules/laws of science and biology are slim to none….as it would break all the rules.”

    7. You mean, like the Saola, or Vu Quang ox, also known as the Asian unicorn? What if such an animal only been known by odd reports and photographs? It was described by the locals (to western explorers) as possessing haf-meter-long horns that curved backwards, and possessed flaps of skin on each side of their muzzles which the animal used to secret a powerful scent from large glands to mark their territory. Would you have also dismissed such reports because the unique physical features of this animal broke the “rules of science and biology.”

    “So yeah… Why hasn’t the video been released? What is the point or purpose of holding out? Ironing out the special effects?”

    8. So now you are suggesting that we are being deliberately deceitful?

    “A large, water going mystery creature could only feasibly exist in a very large body of water, such as an ocean.”

    9. Do you have ANY idea how big Lake Okanagan is? The lake is 135KMs long, 4-5 KM wide and up to 232 feet deep. Quite big enough for even a modest population of large lake dwelling creatures I would think.

    “There would also be quite a few of them to be sustainable.”

    10. How many do you think? It may only need a dozen or less of them to propagate the species, going on what we know of rare (known) species of animals today, both in captivity and in the wild.

    “People are seeing something that isn’t there due to miss-identification.”

    10. So, everybody else is wrong and you are right?

    “Again, all of this circular talk and “reporting” without proof amounts to nothing…no conclusion. The very fact that you are getting defensive proves my point that you expected everyone to just take your story and pic of a wake as proof there was some huge creature in the water splashing around and undulating in and out of the water in such a way that biology proves to be impossible.”

    11. I merely reported my observations, that’s it. And I have been more than patient in answering all your questions. However, as you are a firm DISBELIEVER in Ogopogo, one can only speculate as to WHY you are even on this forum in the first place?

    I will now consider this exchange closed. Thank you.

  48. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    I’m here because I can and I have an interest in Cryptozoology. My opinions is no more or less valid than yours.

    Next, there needs to be more than a dozen or so of them in the wild to be a successful and sustainable species. Your analogy of endangered species and those in zoos is invalid as those animals are protected and get assistance from humans to propagate. The rare and endangered animals in the wild that are barely sustaining themselves number in the hundreds. The lake is big, but not large enough to support a decent number of giant monsters…not in the numbers to sustain themselves…which means having plenty of non-related animals for the genetic diversity needed.

    I too have an open mind, but when science proves that they can’t exist, I take value in that. Your analogy of the ox also bears no weight on this discussion. There is nothing in science that says such an ox cannot exist, unlike Ogopogo. No one has ever claimed that the Saola looked or did anything that was scientifically impossible or improbable. It has four hooves and two horns…just what you would expect from such a creature. Again, if Ogopogo were a mammal, then there would have to be a decent number of them. They would come up for air a LOT. The lake is big, but not big enough to hide a group of large mammals on a highly traveled lake. Oh, and then there is a fact that mammals don’t undulate up and down in a serpentine manner to produce several humps over nearly 30 feet. Sorry, but it is a scientific fact. Water going mammals flap their tails up and down to move through the water, not in an up and down, undulating, serpentine manner. All other water going vertebrates such as fish and reptiles undulate from side to side in a serpentine manner. Its a scientific fact. It is the most efficient manner of travel.

    I’m not saying I’m right and everyone else is wrong…just mistaken. People go to these places to see some sort of creature of legend. They expect to see it. So when they see something they don’t understand or recognize, they automatically assume that it had to be the giant lake monster of legend.

    I have an open mind to all things possible….but I don’t hold things in too high of a regard if they can be proven to be scientifically and/or biologically impossible. There are laws in nature for all mammals, fish, birds, reptiles, insects, etc.

    Again, I challenge you or anyone else to share with us all any creature that a vertebrate, large, long and undulates up and down to move through the water. As it has never happened in nature, I’m not gonna hold me breath waiting.

  49. wuffing responds:

    Dr Gibbons, I have read your statements and looked at the two photographs. In both of them the line of the wake extends out of the frame at each side, making it hard to determine whether it was travelling to the left or to the right. Perhaps you could clarify that for me. You also say these photographs were taken after the creature had submerged. Animals travelling just under the water surface experience wave drag until they are submerged to twice their body diameter, and this amounts to about 2.4 times the drag when below that depth. This energy goes into making a positive pressure wave in front and a negative pressure wave at the rear. The front (bow or “vee”) waves usually diverge at about the Kelvin angle of 39 degrees. Animals trying to move at speed will therefore submerge to at least twice their diameters to avoid wasting this energy. Human swimmers in competitions know this and when doing a diving start or turn they will strive to remain twice their “chest depth” under the surface to avoid creating a surface wave. In your photographs there is a wave created by something for tens of metres which seems intent on making swimming as laborious as possible, and this is unusual in aquatic creatures.

    When I first looked at the photos my reaction was like Carumba’s – “appears to be that of 2 separate wake halves colliding which have originated from 2 different boats, hence the dark shadows in the crests and the rolling turmoil.”

    Is it possible that the green ridged humps you saw were actually large fish which were coincidentally in the area, lurking just under the surface, and only made visible by the actions of the arriving waves?

  50. sonofthedestroyer responds:

    It’s a waste of time arguing with certain types skeptics when it comes to cryptozoology. You will end up running in circles 24/7/365 because it becomes an ego thing.

  51. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    I’m not a skeptic, I’m a realist. It isn’t an ego thing. I firmly believe that there is always a chance for some of the cryptids to exist…or at least have existed. But when some of them, like Ogopogo, defy all laws of nature and science I chalk it up to tall tales, legend and misidentifications.

  52. twas brillig responds:

    David Woetzel giving his eyewitness testimony sounds far more intelligent, sincere, discerned and experienced (in the field) than all the naysayers here combined, it’s as if every one of his clear and well stated points went in one ear and out the other.

    I’d at least keep an open mind to what he has to say until any of you can interview the man yourself and determine he has no integrity and no field experience.

  53. JimmyS5 responds:

    Thank you very much Bill. I recently watched you speak in Calgary at a Dinosaur and Human coexistence Conference. You allowed me to recieve some of your presentations, and I have convinced many of my friends that the Mokele Mbembe and the N’goubou DO exist.
    This Ogopogo sighting is incredible, as well as the video sonofthedestroyer posted on this site. I am very interested in Cryptozoology and this sighting was a large boost in my confidence in the subject; as well as actually hearing you speak about your incredible sighting.

    People today are too afraid to accept that a creature like this could possibly exist because they know it would completely disprove the theory of evolution and the time gap of millions of years between supposedly “prehistoric” and “extinct” creatures.

    Again, Thanks

  54. LvngstoneJS5 responds:

    Thank you Mr. Gibbons. Your research on the mokele mbembe and this sighting has greatly inspired me. My friend and I are planning a short expedition to Okanogan Lake this summer to hopefully see the creature.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.