Ogopogo Photo

Posted by: Loren Coleman on July 9th, 2009

A photograph of the alleged new carcass of Ogopogo has not turned up yet, but the following one was published. Historically, it is interesting, and I figured Cryptomundo readers would like to have a look and critique it.

This is a July 1985 file photo from an undisclosed location overlooking Okanagan Lake, British Columbia, Canada, and purporting to show the very elusive Ogopogo on the surface. This is a freelance photo by Wafil Bierowsky. [PNG Merlin Archive]



Updated with other version (?) of the photo:

Loren Coleman 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.

49 Responses to “Ogopogo Photo”

  1. lukedog responds:

    2 or 3 pieces of driftwood , the highly focused gentleman in photo is slight give away

  2. Isaiah responds:

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen this one before. I find it annoying, though, when people like “lukedog” make statements like that, yet, have no backing, and, no way to explain themselves, as there is nothing to support it! I disagree that this has even the slightest potential to be driftwood, as I am sure that no credible witness would even be willing to come forward with their photograph if they were under the impression that it could be anything other than an unexplained creature in this lake in Canada. I’m not saying that this is definitely Ogopogo, but, I do believe that the photographer certainly believed in what he saw, and, I do too. This is a superb piece of evidence to support the existence of Ogopogo. Thanks for posting Loren. 🙂


  3. AlyoshaK responds:

    I find that the comment made by “lukedog” is typical of the mindless, knee-jerk responses that the internet has made so common. The truth is, there is not enough information in this photo to draw any primary conclusions about it. What’s wrong with recognizing that?

    Distance is very difficult to judge in a photo like this, but, my photographer’s eye tells me the object is 50-75 feet away from the lens. If I’m correct, it’s 20-30 feet long. We know nothing of the behavior of the object aside from this instant in time. If it undulated and disappeared, leaving a wake, I’d say you have an living entity or multiple entities.

    If it drifted along slowly, occasionally revealing sharper more defined edges, you probably have driftwood. I will say this; if you pull this into photoshop, adjust the levels, sharpen slightly and equalize (which will highlight reflections) you will see that it reflects very evenly and smoothly with greater reflection density on the far side of the object. That means this is a smooth object. Driftwood reflections would generally be more broken up and diffuse.

    It’s hard to visualize a single animal that would make this profile above the water; it would have to be very serpentine or immense and mostly hidden. But, I certainly can’t say that it is driftwood, given the evidence at hand, so the only intellectually honest thing to say is that, lacking further evidence, it is a smooth, apparently undulating, dark shape in the water, that seems to be leaving a very slight wake, indicating movement to the left side of the photo.

    The mystery would be greatly lessened if the photographer had snapped dozens of subsequent photos. But, the grain pattern indicates that this is consumer grade, probably 400 ASA film, and not a digital capture. It could have been his last shot.

    It’s great to analyze, but keep it scientific, and draw only the conclusions you can prove to be true.

  4. Isaiah responds:

    QUOTE: “I find that the comment made by “lukedog” is typical of the mindless, knee-jerk responses that the internet has made so common. The truth is, there is not enough information in this photo to draw any primary conclusions about it. What’s wrong with recognizing that?”

    Thanks. That’s why I made my comment. I didn’t mean to sound so harsh.


  5. gghg responds:

    Well to me the object in the water seems to well defined compared to the rest of the photograph. That with the fact that there is no visible wake leads me to conclude that this is a photoshopped hoax.

  6. LanceFoster responds:

    I am going to go with driftwood again 🙂 Loren knows I am not a scoftic.

    With only one snapshot, and its not being a video/film, there is not much one can say about it. Nor is there is statement from the photographer as to whether the object was actively moving as an animate object, or if it was just floating along motionless. That would be a game-changer. Based ONLY on this photo, these are some things to consider, and why I interpreted it as partially waterlogged driftwood:

    1. There is no wake at all, and no ripples in the water to indicate movement.

    2. It is either one larger object or a connected mass of smaller objects. From left, A-F.

    3. There are six apparent points where the object breaks the surface (A-F). One of the points is very small, almost unnoticeable (D).

    4. Five of the points lie along the same axis; the middle section has a very small portion (D) that is not on the same axis.

    5. Except for the smallest point (D), and the portion second from the far left (B), all are not only on the same axis, they indicate a sinuous form. Without points B and D, one could suggest a serpentine -form- (not the same as movement).

    6. Sinuous form creates an illusion of undulating movement, but without ripples, there is no -evidence- of movement in this photo (which is no to say that movement was absent). Branches are sinuous in form, as are many things in nature.

    7. There are some variations in the dark color, most of which are highlights from the wet nature of the object, but the far left and far right have discolorations which are interesting, and may indicate the object has different surfaces, as when darker bark is peeled to expose the wood underneath.

    8. The portion second from left is turned on a different plane than the body of the object, evident from the different direction of the highlight and direction of the sunlight; there is a darker shadowed part to the right which indicates a terminus of that part. This is consistent with a broken off branch.

    That’s my two-cents’ worth, JUST based on this single photo and no statement from the photographer. (Ducks from all the pissed-off rock throwers).

  7. lincoln s responds:

    its a nice photo though I have no idea as to what it may be

  8. DWA responds:


    As someone who has had it up to freaking here with all the people screaming “photoshopped hoax!!!!!!” at everything coming down the pike…

    …I actually think you may be right.

    It jumped at me so quick, in fact, I’d be surprised to find out it wasn’t. Not stunned beyond belief. But surprised.

  9. sasquatch responds:


  10. Isaiah responds:


    Photoshop didn’t exist in 1985. It’s that simple.


  11. DWA responds:

    Now. Having read other comments here, and generally subscribing to the positions that (1) no one should postulate anything without evidence and (2) that crying Photoshop brands one a rube absent such evidence, I should give you mine.

    And you won’t need to mess with the Disbelieve, Scoftic, Wild Guess or any other functions in Photoshop. Use your eyes.

    What’s the only thing in that entire photo that appears in crystal clear focus? The shape in question. That’s it. Nothing else seems to be better than at the very least slightly fuzzy or hazy. Just the shape stands out. Having taken a lot of distance photographs, that just strikes me as weird. I suppose it could be possible with an extreme tele lens. Which is why this is an educated guess more than a conclusion. But it just struck me, the instant I saw the shot, as odd; and that is never, to me, good. It also occurs to me that the rapid, precise focus that would be required to get that effect would be very difficult for me to do. I see this is freelance; which doesn’t necessarily say the guy is world class. He might however be either good or lucky enough to have nailed it. Still. That’s my impression, open to discussion and revision. One tag to hang on a discussion: that photo has zero interesting content without the Photoshopping. It looks very unlikely that it was taken, just like that, and the “monster” Shopped in unless the whole operation was premeditated as a hoax, which to me makes the hoax scenario more unlikely. (Like any liar or crook, hoaxers know they need to keep it simple to have max chance of getting away with it.)


    That’s a bunch of bumps in the water. That’s what it is. A hoax, while to me not any kind of certainty, is still a possibility here, and even if that’s not it, we still have a bunch of bumps. And yes, someone could see something mundane in the water and draw a wrong conclusion – and even decide to submit the photo after he’s changed his mind, just to see how well the joke nature played on him plays with the public. I don’t think any scientist wishing to retain a shred of credibility would cite this as a “superb” piece of evidence. Why? He would have no backing, and no way to explain himself.

    I say above what it might be. But I am careful to delimit the strength of my assertion, which is kind of critical in this field if it’s to gain mainstream acceptance.

  12. DWA responds:

    LanceFoster: that piece of driftwood is getting around! I’d like to see the trailer hauling it; that would explode the whole thing. Is anyone looking for that trailer? 😀

  13. LanceFoster responds:

    I don’t think it was photoshopped, because there are no artifacts, odd colors/pixels, blurring etc., but AlyoshaK might have some insights there.

    I looks like it had a manual focus, since the object and the water around it is fairly crisp while the man in the front is blurry (if it was on auto-focus, it would have focused on the man in the foreground instead).

    What AlyoshaK said about it possibly being the last shot of a roll makes sense too.

  14. LanceFoster responds:

    DWA: you forgot about the migratory nature of driftwood. Sure, it starts in water, but when it bumps into dry land, its little twig-legs pop out and it portages itself over hill and dale, until it reaches yet another body of water.

    The evolution of paleodriftwood, much larger than the historic type, is well documented. In the days before the coming of the white settlers, there were vast herds of migratory driftwood, as far as the eye could see. Occasional gathering by the Native Americans did little to impact the herds. Yet, with the coming of the steamboat and the locomotive, driftwood hunters decimated these herds, so that only those driftwood pieces that stayed partially submerged were able to adapt, with the feet becoming more and more vestigial.

    Still, there are genetic throwbacks that retained those twig-legs and occasional are seen furtively moving across the land in search of mates and better waters to float in 😉

  15. DWA responds:

    “gghg,: Photoshop didn’t exist in 1985. It’s that simple.”

    Isaiah: it is NEVER that simple.

    Now, we can stand corrected with incontrovertible evidence that that photograph, as it sits before us, in all its elements, comes from 1985, and that Photoshop did not exist then. There is evidence that that is the case. Now, IF Photoshop didn’t exist in 1985, which shoot, I’m no IT geek, how the heck would I know?, then: Was there no other way that could have been done in 1985? Doctored photos were an ancient art by 1985, relatively speaking.

    “Simple” is a shaky word to use in this field. (Like “Photoshop.” 😉 )

  16. JMonkey responds:

    The symetry alone and the smoothness leads me to believe that it is in fact driftwood, but hey I have been wrong before. I told my friend here in Oklahoma that there was no such thing as a black panther, and while deer hunting 7 years ago low and behold one climbed the tree next to my stand. So anything is possible. I actually thing that the cat I saw was a black Jaguar, but I was still 20 plus feet away from him, so there was no way to see the spots in the twilight. Either way I was exceptionally astounded by its appearance, and it lead me to believe that many things are possible. Good luck with identifying this.

    If you will look close you will see a small “branch maybe” sticking out of the water just before you get to the main humps. Thats what leads me to the driftwood conclusion. But hey maybe it is something else altogether.

  17. JMonkey responds:

    Isaih, you know that photoshop may not have existed, but other photoediting programs did. Now the fact of the matter is that this is probably nothing more than drift wood. The gentleman casual sitting their doesn’t seem to give a rip about the driftwood, but maybe I am wrong. Maybe he is oblivious, and the photographer didn’t want to disturb him, so that he might have someone to cooberate his story. Nope he probably said, I am going to keep this on the low low, while these people walk by and miss this totally obvious huge object floating through the water. get a clue.

  18. bobzilla responds:

    I don’t think it’s one object we’re looking at. And, I think they are on different planes, not all in a row. it doesn’t look like wood, per se, either.

    The problem with still photos, is we don’t know what came before or after the shot we’re looking at. Could be “real”, could be a set up. I find it odd that the guy in the pic is not interested at all.


  19. gghg responds:


    Ok so I agree it couldn’t have been “photoshopped” in 1985, still the fact remains that the object in the water is in sharper focus than anything else in the photo. That indicates to me some kind of superimposition, be it digital or otherwise.

  20. DWA responds:

    LanceFoster: this is why I leave driftwood analysis to the experts. Who knew? Lol

    Ogopogo might be real. I might not drag the lake based on just this photo, however.

  21. Isaiah responds:


    I wasn’t saying it, as in “This is Ogopogo, so grab your cup and jump over the line with me!”, I was saying, that for a 1985 photo, there’s no way that this was a photoshopped image. Altered? Perhaps. I’m just saying that it wasn’t photoshopped. 🙂


  22. korollocke responds:

    You can tell by looking behind the firat bump it’s wood. I’m beging to think the only way I will ever see a true lake or river monster is if I partner up with Dr. Bishop and we bio-enginer one ourselves.

  23. springheeledjack responds:

    That is why Loren posts stuff like this…gives all of us a chance to hone our critical eye(s) and try to make sense of what it is we are seeing. However, I do agree that if you’re going to make a cut and dry statement, you better be prepared to back it up with some wheres ‘n’ whys.

    As for me…the object as a whole, does not look animate from a single picture…and that is the key. Unless we get a close up of an animal that we can distinctly tell it’s an animal (good luck), most pictures are not going to give enought info to make a decision that we actually have an animal.

    AND in this case, there is no way to look at that photo and say yep it’s ogopogo…or champ on vacation:).

    Personally, the front end of the object (s) looks like a tree/stump, driftwood because it looks like a ben angle on the thing. If you discount the front end (and I’m going left to right here), then I would say, yeah, the humps look like the characteristic Ogopogo. HOWEVER, I don’t think it’s Ogo.

    Again, not enough info, and from the look of things I doubt it’s Ogo…that is where the eye witness needs to (if they’re not just looking for their 15 minutes of fame) keep watching, keep taking pictures and see for themselves if its a tree stump, a line of birds or the Ogo him/herself. Because ultimately, if you look longer than 15 seconds, you are going to be able to tell whether you are seeing the normal and mundane or actually seeing something that is out of the ordinary.

    Thanks for the exercise Loren!

  24. korollocke responds:

    “first” and “begining”….cheap as haggard keyboard!

  25. shownuff responds:

    If this creature is real “wow” would it be one awesome animal to witness. Ogopogo, or Champ. Personally i hope we can just study it from afar. Not mess to much with it. It seems to be thriving even though Man has moved in into its living environment. I still remember watching Arthur C. Clarke when i was a little boy and the family that was on the boat while the daughter was on the back water skiing. and She fell into the water and said she saw it and that it looked like a Dog face with whiskers and a snake body. I’m sorry people but that show even though people describe it as just being cool with humans. Still scared the you know what out of me. The photo looks legit. i am by no means an expert. But i always hear from my Native blood that there are truth to the Legends my ancestors spoke about. and speak of to this day. Long live the Lake monsters and Now that we have HD video cams Please my fellow crypto friends get the video that is clear. So noone can say nothing else. make sure your in clear view or try your best. If your going to be around any of these lakes carry your HD cams.. Thank you all for keeping the research alive. Im a newbee my friends so please take it easy on me. Peace to all.

  26. odingirl responds:

    I will admit, my first impression of the photo was that it has been altered in some way, given the static look of the subject in comparison to everything else. But it could be that it’s simply a genuine photo of mundane inanimate objects rather than a faked photograph, given that there’s no discernible wake or really anything to give much of an impression of a living creature. The shapes look a bit stiff and actually, my first impression was of rocks rather than driftwood. Otters are possible, but given that there are 5 or 6 objects in the photo, you’d think that if they were a pod of animals, at least one would be more easily identifiable as such.

    The best thing about everyone examining these things is the critical thinking involved – how most of the people posting here are pretty careful not to dismiss anything out-of-hand, take anything at face value or exclude any possibilities. Wish more people had those skills.

  27. skimmer responds:

    That’s an interesting looking monster, although I am not sure what part we are seeing. If that’s the creature’s head, it appears to have a brown mane of some sort covering its ‘back’—or top if you will, with a curious bare patch near the apex that matches the pinkish coloration visible on the creature’s side. The mane is consistent with many eyewitness accounts I’ve read about lake monsters. The animal might be a mature specimen, as it appears the ‘mane’ is turning either grey or white near what appears to be a blow hole—oddly centered, on the side of the head. There is also an interesting white band just behind the head separating it from the striking blue body just visible above the lower margin of the picture—perhaps the band is some sort of gill. The creature appears to be stationary, although out of focus in relation to the odd bumps in the water behind it. I’m not sure what the little bump is on the lower right of the creature’s head—some sort of fin I imagine, or tooth maybe. It certainly wouldn’t rule out that it is alive, just because you can not see it clearly or because it looks like something else…

  28. lincoln s responds:

    or maybe the photo was taken in 1985 then tamapered with later. but I don’t know it could be anything

  29. cryptidsrus responds:

    To be honest my “Careful” Light went off when I first saw it. I’m not going to say it IS what it looks to be or that it may be a “hoax.” I just think not enough evidence is available. If I have to hazard a guess, I’d say “Not driftwood, but the lack of a wake IS cause for critical detachment, so to speak.” Still hopeful, though. Thanks for the photo, Loren—at least it’s worth contemplating.

  30. red_pill_junkie responds:

    I would like to go step-by-step here.

    First: can we analyze the background to determine if the date given to the photograph (1985) is consistent with the state of development around the lake?

    It may be something insignificant, but if we find out that the photograph does not in fact correspond to the alleged date, then we can stop all speculation concerning the objects in the lake.

  31. spgass responds:

    Interesting photo. I’m not sure what to make of it.

  32. Isaiah responds:


    In response to your first post, fair point, but, that’s my contention, and, I’m sticking to it. I tend to be more open minded than most, as I did have a sighting of a 9-10 foot creature in the St Lawrence River (NY) in the summer of 2006.

  33. hamforkam responds:

    “I find that the comment made by “lukedog” is typical of the mindless, knee-jerk responses that the internet has made so common.”

    LOL. Woah, guys. We’re all entitled to our own opinions? 😀
    And I agree. It looks like some gross debris floating around. The way the segments above the water are positioned…it doesn’t look like a natural shape for anything.

  34. DWA responds:

    hamforkam: I agree with you. But boy do I get the frustration. I see too many kneejerk tossoffs of intriguing stuff not to agree with the statement, although yeah it could be toned down.

    Isaiah: I don’t think crypto will get anywhere until it becomes an active part of mainstream zoology. As far as I am concerned: the way a scientist, observing his scientific discipline, would treat a piece of evidence is the way crypto MUST treat it. This one is: potentially interesting, maybe. But nothing by itself.

    This is why the scoftical insistence that cryptos need to prove it, while scoftics don’t need to back anything they say at all, sets my teeth on edge. Scoftics have a position (that’s not real), that they need to defend, or else they are obstructing a scientific investigation. Likewise, advocates need to back evidence with evidence, and assertion with evidence as well. And in the end, no one will prove anything, if the scientific mainstream does not; because we delegate to science the authority, and the responsibility, for proof. Period.

  35. CryptoInformant 2.0 responds:

    Okay, let’s look at this. I don’t see anything clearly pointing to this being all one contiguous form – so why make the assumption? Further, because it’s a still photo, we get little-to-no impression of how it moved, or even if it moved. And third… if the guy is blurry but the thing in the water isn’t, doesn’t that look just a tad strange?

  36. alanborky responds:

    Don’t Ogo’ POGO – Ogo’ GO-GO!

    Loren, until now I was unaware of this image and my first reaction was to jump up and down excitedly at what was ‘clearly’ an ‘obvious’ fake.

    Everything about it was wrong: the main focus of the entire image was on the purported Ogo’, the pixel distribution was an almost perfect horizontal and, aboveall, for something supposedly located in an aquatic environment, where were the mirror-like reflections on the surface of the water, where were the expanding regions of ripples corresponding to the ‘humps’ as their epicentre and source?

    However, a check to see if there was a better version of the picture out there produced the image posted above, [see the update ~ Cryptomundo] from over at the local (Vancouver) online version at The Province: there they are – the reflections, the expanding ripples.

    It doesn’t mean it IS Ogopogo – but it does mean it ISN’T Ogo’ NO GO!

  37. alcalde responds:

    >Ok so I agree it couldn’t have been “photoshopped” in 1985, still the fact remains
    >that the object in the water is in sharper focus than anything else in the photo.
    >That indicates to me some kind of superimposition, be it digital or otherwise.

    It’s in sharper focus because it’s quite farther away than the man or the flowers. Focusing on the object(s) in the water then will put the closer objects out of focus. If the objects in the photo were at a similar distance but one was much more in focus than the others, that would indeed be suspicious.

    korollocke, as a recent Fringe-watcher, I found your comment hilarious! You’re probably right, too. But maybe you could settle for deep ocean monster, where you might still have some luck?

    >This is why the scoftical insistence that cryptos need to prove it, while scoftics
    >don’t need to back anything they say at all, sets my teeth on edge.
    >Scoftics have a position (that’s not real), that they need to defend, or else they
    >are obstructing a scientific investigation.

    Hasn’t this dance been done many, many times before? 🙂 If you’re claiming there’s a lake monster, you have to prove it. That’s your hypothesis. If you offer this photo, all someone has to say is that it COULD be driftwood, then your evidence doesn’t prove your hypothesis and you need more evidence.

    You have to keep asking questions (conduct experiments, gather evidence) until you have a set of occurrences that can only be explained by your, and no other, hypothesis. Of course, even if you do, sometime in the future a new hypothesis could be presented that accounts for all the evidence and more experiments will have to ensue.

    This photo could be a lake monster… or driftwood… or snorkeling windsurfers following a beaver. There’s nothing for a “skoftic” to have to prove. Like in a court of law, the defense doesn’t need to prove innocence, just introduce doubt. The prosecution has to prove. This photo isn’t incontrovertible evidence of a lake monster, so it’s not proof of your hypoothesis that there is one, so there’s nothing for anyone to disprove. No one has to prove its driftwood. Just the fact that it is *conceivable* that it’s driftwood is enough for there to be no way to conclude that there’s a monster in the lake as of yet. Science is harsh that way. 🙂 If it’s any consolation, I expect my own snorkeling windsurfers following beaver theory will be even more of a pain to prove than Ogopogo….

  38. DWA responds:

    alcalde: “Hasn’t this dance been done many, many times before?”

    Yes. But you’ve got to get the steps right, like with any dance. My post just describes them. If crypto wants to be a science, everyone has to follow them. They’re not my rules. They’re Science’s rules. In a scientific discussion, everyone at the table must back their theses with evidence.

    Crypto is the only “science” I am aware of where people totally unschooled on the evidence are given equal footing with the best minds in the field. That is why “science” remains in quotes.

  39. Stephanie responds:

    I just have to jump in and say that Champ is in Lake Champlain in Vermont/New York…and Quebec. Ogopogo is in British Columbia, Canada, on the other side of the continent. I’ve seen Champ’s name tossed around a few times and I really doubt he went on a western Canadian holiday. :p

  40. Isaiah responds:

    K, It’s high time to change my theory. This is definitely altered. The new image proves it, unless that’s just a wax sculpture of an old man, as it didn’t move, nor, did the scenery change. I vote “Hoax” on this one.


  41. Loren Coleman responds:

    Sorry, guys. No highjacking of these comments for your extended discussions about skepticism/scofticism/sciencism here.

    Talk about the photo, if you wish.

  42. alcalde responds:

    Isaiah, I believe the second photo *is* the first photo, just uncropped/scaled.

  43. alcalde responds:

    Changed my mind too. 🙂 I just looked at both photos for the first time at full-screen size. Doesn’t the first photo seem like the “anomaly” has had detail added to it? The bottom one is less cropped on the bottom (so the first pic can’t be the original) but the first seems to have a shiny snake-like texture to the anomaly and a mark of color at the “head” area that simply isn’t present in the second photo. Unless neither is the original, what seems more like driftwood in the second version seems to have been intentionally made more snake-like in the first one.

  44. korollocke responds:

    It changed color?????? How did that happen? Just another false hope,fudge…..

  45. korollocke responds:

    So alcalde your saying I need to wait for something to “surface”? I still want a real Ogopogo or like or simular critter. This altered pic doesn’t do it for me.

  46. Ghost314 responds:

    It could not possibly be an altered image, or something mundane like driftwood. Uh…why not?

    I see several objects, not a single serpentine creature. I vote for a family of Sasquatch frolicing in the water. It is BC after all.

  47. Dr. Strings responds:

    Looks like a hoax to me. The image looks superimposed, and more detailed and colored a bit differently in the upper photo. Also odd that the only thing in focus is the alleged monster. Another thing; anyone find it odd that the guy pictured in the photo, who appears to be very close to the photographer, has absolutely no interest in the monster right behind him in the lake? Wouldn’t he notice it, rather than just sit there and drink his coffee or read his paper? Wouldn’t the guy taking the picture say, “Hey buddy! Look, it’s the Ogopogo monster! Right behind you!” I mean, come on! LOL!

  48. Zilla responds:

    They look out of position. Rocks perhaps.

  49. mothman123 responds:

    I agree with lukedog on this one and i realy beileve in lake monsters and this photograph is not convincing

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.