Lake Monster Mysteries: Investigating the World's Most Elusive Creatures

2. Lake Champlain

2 LAKE CHAMPLAIN Termed North America's Loch Ness monster and known affectionately as "Champ," the legendary Lake Champlain monster reportedly haunts those waters. Lake Champlain was formed roughly ten thousand years ago when an estuary of the Atlantic Ocean, the Champlain Sea, was transformed by receding glaciers into an inland, freshwater body (Zarzynski 1984a). This lake-and some say the creature, too-was "discovered " in 1609 by Samuel de Champlain. Since then, the I25-mile-Iong lake, situated between New York and Vermont (with 6 miles extending into Quebec), has received much attention (figure 2.1). In 1873 and 1887, showman P. T. Barnum offered huge rewards for the monsterdead or alive (Zarzynski 1984a, 83). More recently, there has been much cryptozoological interest and the development ofa burgeoning Champ industry. Proliferating sightings, "theories" of self-styled monster hunters, and even a Holy Grail photo ofthe supposed beast have spawned innumerable newspaper and magazine articles, books, entries in paranormal compendia, and radio and television segments, as well as key chains, mugs, T-shirts, and other paraphernalia, not to mention the "Champburger " (a seafood patty on a sesame seed bun). Such endeavors have made Champ the best-known lake monster in the United States and, except for British Columbia's "Ogopogo" (see chapter 7), in all ofNorth America. "Few cryptozoologists deny the possibility of Champ's existence ," states W Haden Blackman in his Field Guide to North American Monsters (1998), "and many openly accept the creature," believing it to be a plesiosaur, zeuglodon, or other unknown or erstwhile extinct 27 CAN!!~ _---USA ~ Plattsourglz - --Jort eassin(site) ;gattonBtlj!StatePark. Port ~tZfY'. BU/rlt1J!4iJtl!! ~ 2 :'. . .: 10rt Jiconderoga.. ~ ( :£~k~ :..:~;:;~'.~::;.<'.:: .: • .~~::'::,:.' : : ' : . ' . ', ; • :.~: ~ . .. "', ' ',', . 1 1 . ' .: . .':'!........ '. 0"' , . ";. .... ...... -.- .. :: .. " -, . ... Figure 2.7 The Lake Champlain monster, traced from an enlargement of Sandra Mansi's 1977 photograph. (Illustration by Benjamin Radford) 50 LAKE CHAMPLAIN focused on just the photograph or just the sighting account. In the quarter century since the photo was first published, there had been no in-depth effort to reconcile the two and get a complete picture of the event. This seemed to be a glaring oversight for such a famous and important photo. I spent countless hours looking at the photo, trying to glean any hint or angle that might tease out its secrets. Rather than using the most often reprinted (and cropped) version of the photograph, I traveled to Connecticut to study the rarely seen original print. Mansi's lawyer, Alan Neigher, a warm and accommodating man, kindly gave me free access to stare at the thing as long as I pleased. There are two fundamental questions about the object in the Mansi photo: Is it alive? and How big is it? There are a number ofpuzzling elements in the story that make little sense if the object is actually a large, living animal bur need not be answered if the object is nonliving. Morphology. In my own analysis of the Mansi photograph, I discovered something odd about the object. It isn't apparent at first glance, but the "head" and "hump" aren't clearly connected. The neck and hump of the creature (if that's what it is) are at a very unnatural Figure 2.8 Some researchers suggest that Champ may be a plesiosaur, a marine reptile that died out over fifty million years ago. (Illustration by Benjamin Radford) 5I LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES angle and position relative to each other. It's difficult to picture how the gently sloping hump on the right could be anatomically connected to the neck, which emerges from the water at about an eighty-fIve-degree angle. The hump slopes down toward the base ofthe neck just a few feet away. In his book on Champ, Zarzynski admits that the head and hump are not obviously connected. He does, however, show an "electronic heavy enhancement of the Mansi photograph demonstrating 'that the monster's back and head are connected.'" I remain unconvinced; the "heavy enhancement" seems to have done little but emphasize the dark patches-which would, of course, include the head's shadow. The neck portion doesn't align with the hump and in fact clearly emerges from the water away from the hump and supposed body (figure 2.7). The reason that the head and hump seem to be connected is the presence of a dark patch in the water berween the rwo. I suggest that this is in fact a shadow from the neck and head. In the photograph, that area is not nearly as dark as the head and hump and has all the characteristics of Figure 2.9 Driftwood and tree stumps can often take on strange and fantastic forms, including those of lake monsters. This six-foot piece of driftwood was found on Lake Champlain in the 1980s. (Photo by Bruce Rowland, courtesy of the Plattsburgh Press-Republican) LAKE CHAMPLAIN a shadow. Furthermore, Mansi's own account corroborates the shadow hypothesis. She claims that the photo was taken at around noon. If this is true, then at the lake's latitude, the sunlight should be coming from the south, casting a shadow downward and north (to the right in the photo)-exactly where the neck and hump meet. There doesn't seem to be enough space between the base ofthe neck and the hump to plausibly account for the rest of the submerged body. It's hard to conceive ofa large aquatic animal whose morphology would allow for such a tortuous positioning. One of the most popular candidates for Champ is a prehistoric creature called the plesiosaur (figure 2.8), but the neck length and body shape are hard to reconcile with the object in the photograph. The object is supposedly a head and neck, yet (unlike all other known animals) there are no discernible organs-no mouth, no eyes, no nose, no ears, no sensory organs at all. It is simply a curved, ambiguous shape in the water, not identifiable as a head and neck other than by inference. It does seem to have a vaguely head-shaped tip, but a root sticking up from a partially submerged tree stump could look identical . Roots and branches can take many gnarled, twisted, and fantastic forms, and the shape in the photo wouldn't be unusual. In fact, through the years, many people have found natural roots that resemble the heads and bodies of lake monsters. One striking photo of a serpentine (but wooden) head and neck can be found on page 99 ofZarzynski's Champ: Beyond the Legend. Another-found near Lake Champlain-is reproduced here from an undated photo in the Plattsburgh Press-Republican (figure 2.9). Behavior andMovement. Unlike other animals, the lake "creature" was oblivious to noise and movement. Despite two children playing in the water less than 150 feet away and a grown man shouting at it, the "creature" didn't turn its head toward the source of the sound and was apparently unaware of the four humans directly behind it. As Mansi reported, "It did not even look our way-and the kids were loud, they were having a great time.... It didn't know I was there. I'm sure it didn't." This detail strongly suggests that the object Mansi saw was nonliving . Sound travels more than four times faster in water than in air, 53 LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES and some whales can hear sounds at distances oftwenty miles or more. A living creature ofthe presumed size and complexity ofChamp should certainly be able to hear and sense two young children splashing and playing nearby. Mansi attributes Champ's distinctly unusual behavior to deafness: "I really don't think it could hear because wouldn't you think that if it heard the children [it would turn its head to face us]?" A simpler explanation is that the object couldn't hear because it was nonliving. Mansi said that the creature, after surfacing six to eight feet out of the water, turned its head, apparently looking over the countryside. But what would an aquatic animal be doing scanning the shoreline and surrounding area? Animals that live in the water are unlikely to have good terrestrial vision for the distances described. Sea turtles, for example, have excellent eyesight underwater but are nearsighted on land. The idea that Champ would stick its head up to "have a long look around" (except toward the loud noises behind it) seems extremely unlikely. The creature held its head out of the water and was essentially stationary for "at least five to seven minutes." Even given the fact that eyewitnesses tend to overestimate the duration of sightings, this is a remarkably long time for any large, living creature to remain essentially motionless. Large animals in the wild rarely stay immobile for long periods unless they are sleeping or eating. The majority of Champ sightings last less than a minute-often only a few seconds. If the Champ creatures (and there would have to be dozens to constitute a breeding population) habitually stick their necks six feet or more out ofthe water for five minutes or longer (whether people are nearby or not), it's amazing that they aren't sighted routinely. The object's movements were not characteristic ofan animal. From Mansi's description, the head and neck were always more or less fixed in the same position. Although the head was said to move to some degree, it did not, for example, slide back or around as a snake's head might. The object moved more like a stiff, stationary object turning slightly on its axis than like a flexible, pliable neck or appendage. Many reportsincluding Mansi's-specifically point out that Champ "sank-it did not dive-under the water" (e.g., Clark and Pear 1995,433). This is an 54 LAKE CHAMPLAIN interesting characteristic, and exactly the behavior one would expect from a protruding root or branch of a partially submerged tree being roiled by waves: a necklike object sinking back into the water instead of diving forward. Mouth. There is only one specific detail in Mansi's account that argues for a living creature and against a root or a tree: the presence ofa mouth. Mansi said, "I could see that it was living. I could not see detail ... I remember the mouth was open when it came up and water came out." This feature is indeed hard to reconcile with a stump or a log. But later during our interview, Mansi contradicted herself: "When it came up, its mouth was closed, but you could see water [coming from the head]." This suggests that she only inferred the presence of a mouth. Since Mansi was interpreting the top of the "neck" as a head, this is a perfectly reasonable and perceptually sound assumption. Given that she thought she was seeing a creature's head, her mind supplied the rest. The process by which the human mind fills in perceptual details that Figure 2.10 In field experiments on Lake Champlain, investigator Benjamin Radford holds a 3-foot marker at 150 feet. Using this image, the "monster" in the Mansi photo can be measured. (Photo by Joe Nickell) 55 LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES aren't actually present is well documented (see, e.g., Williams, Loftus, and Deffenbacher 1992). Ifyou look at the downward curve ofthe nose and head, it's easy to see how water draining off the lowest point could be interpreted as coming from a hidden mouth. Size. The object's actions seem to be distinctly nonliving, but if it really is the monstrous size suggested, a lake creature remains a possibility . Many analyses had been conducted to determine the object's size (Mansi said fifteen to twenty feet; LeBlond suggested sixteen to fiftysix ). Ifvalid, these estimates would suggest a lake monster, but the measurements were indirect and fraught with error. The lack of reference objects and known distances makes the task formidable. However, the analysis can be approached from a different angle: Although we don't know the absolute size of-or distance to-the object, we do know what Sandra Mansi reported as the size and distance. With those variables fixed, it is a fairly straightforward process to determine whether the object is the size she (and others) claim. To help judge the validity ofthe Mansi photo, we carried out some experiments during our expedition to Lake Champlain. Following an unfruitful attempt to locate the original site, we chose a spot on the lake in the same general area. Joe Nickell stood approximately 8 feet above the waterline; this height is similar to that reported by Sandra Mansi (kneeling down atop a 6-foot ledge). I entered the lake holding a 3-foot black-and-white scale marker, measured off in I-foot lengths. Photographs (using the same type of camera Mansi used in I977-a Kodak Instamatic, fixed-focus IIo) were taken at 50-foot intervals, ending up 150 feet from shore (figure 2.10). The distances were measured directly, calibrated using a synthetic string to avoid any stretching in the water. Joe also took duplicate photos with his own 35 mm camera (those reproduced here). For comparison, we verified that both cameras were of the same focal length. With the camera at the height Mansi claimed (about 8 to 9 feet) and the marker in the water at the distance she claimed (150 feet), this should allow us to measure the size ofan object in that scale. Any object of a claimed size at a certain distance (at a given focal length) will take up a measurable space in the print. We measured the size of the I-foot 56 LAKE CHAMPLAIN Figure 2.II A six-foot "Champ" neck rises out of Lake Champlain. (Photo by Joe Nickell) scale at 150 feet on our photograph, marked that, and transferred the measurement to the Mansi image scaled to the same size. For greatest accuracy, I carefully measured the Champ object in comparison to the original photo in its entirety, not the magnified and cropped commercial version that appears in books and magazines (and is reproduced here). Unfortunately for those claiming that the Mansi object is huge, the numbers don't add up. All the previous estimates of the object's size were dramatically overstated. The "neck" sticking out of the water is nowhere near the previous estimates of 6 to 8 feet or more. Instead, the object is just over 3 feet out of the water, and both segments together are about 7 feet across. (A less accurate comparison using the leastcropped publicly available version of the photo, in the April 1998 issue of Discover magazine, produces a neck height of about 4 feet.) To double -check our results, we also worked backward, using a photograph of a mock Champ neck and head held 6 feet above the water at 150 feet (figure 2.n). If Mansi's estimates are correct, the neck height in the two 57 LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES photos should look very similar. Using that scale for measurement, we verified that our estimate was indeed accurate. Note that our analysis is based on Sandra Mansi's own estimates and testimony. Because the object in the photo is inconsistent with the claimed height, those who wish to maintain that the object is 6 feet or taller (and 15 feet or longer) will have to decide which part of Mansi's story is false (or inaccurate). There is no way to be sure exactly how large the object is, but estimates of the distance and the size can't both be correct; either one-or both-must be wrong. Since the publication ofour results, I have been contacted by two other researchers who independently arrived at similar estimates regarding the object's size. At least one researcher,]. Richard Greenwell (1992), concluded that Mansi's I50-foot distance estimate is correct: "we concluded that that object, whatever it is, was there in the lake at that estimated distance." The most likely explanation is that the Mansis simply thought the object was bigger than it was. This effect is well known in eyewitness reports; Zarzynski (I988a, 109) himselfwarns about it: "many estimates Figure 2.I2 The heavily wooded shores of Lake Champlain offer an explanation for the many logs and tree stumps in and around the lake. (Photo by Benjamin Radford) 58 LAKE CHAMPLAIN of length tend to be overstated." Yasushi Kojo (1991), another Champ researcher, also states that "the sizes of the animals are frequently overestimated in sighting reports." This revelation sheds new light on the object in the Mansi photograph . With the size approximately half that of all previous estimates, the range of possible candidates becomes far larger-including a large bird, a known animal, or a floating tree stump. My Conclusions. It seems clear that the object had none of the characteristics of a living animal. The object that Mansi saw and photographed , I believe, was almost certainly a log or tree stump that happened to surface at an angle that made it difficult to identifY. Sandra Mansi's own description of the object's texture supports this conclusion : "The texture looks like bark, like crevice-y." How could someone mistake a tree for a living creature? For anyone knowledgeable abour eyewitness testimony, it's not difficult to imagine. The case of another unknown animal sighting is instructive. In March 1986, Anthony Wooldridge, an experienced hiker in the HimaFigure 2.I3 Many pieces of driftwood resemble a lake monster's head and neck. (Photo by Benjamin Radford) 59 LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES layas, saw what he thought was a Yeti (a Bigfoot-like creature) standing in the snow near a ridge about five hundred feet away. He described the figure as having a head that was "large and squarish," and the body "seemed to be covered with dark hair." It didn't move or make noise, but Wooldridge saw odd tracks in the snow that seemed to lead toward the figute. He took two photos of the creature, which were later analyzed and shown to be genuine and undoctored. Many in the Bigfoot community seized on the Wooldridge photos as clear evidence ofa Yeti, including John Napier, an anatomist and anthropologist who had served as the Smithsonian Institution's director of primate biology. The next year, researchers returned to the spot and found that Wooldridge had simply seen a dark rock outcropping against the snow that looked vertical from his position (Wooldridge 1987). Several researchers have suggested visual explanations of the object in the Mansi photo. In one case (seen in a 2003 Discovery Channel documentary), a researcher compared the image's silhouette to various animals and objects, such as a jumping fish, a bird, or a tree stump. I found his (failed) attempt at duplicating a possible tree stump rather unimpressive, so I created a scale model of a tree stump that, from certain angles, might resemble the object Mansi saw and photographed (see the results in appendix 3). Though the shape doesn't exactly match the Mansi image, it clearly demonstrates one possibility. Driftwood and logs are common in and around Lake Champlain. Much ofthe shoreline is heavily wooded, and washed-up driftwood can be found littered along the shore (figures 2.12 and 2.13). Many of these logs are roughly the size and shape of long, sinewy creatures; it doesn't take much imagination to see how some ofthe thousands oflogs, trees, and stumps along the lake's nearly six hundred miles ofshoreline could be mistaken for a living creature if roiled up by waves and currents. There is another compelling reason to suspect that many of the sightings (including Mansi's) are in fact logs: Lake Champlain has a large and powerful seiche. While the surface of the lake remains calm, an enormous underwater wave-as large as three hundred feet highcan bounce back and forth between the shores. Seiches can occur in just about any body of water, but as writer Dick Teresi (1998) points out, 60 LAKE CHAMPLAIN "the ideal lake for really big seiches would be one like Champlain ... long, narrow, and deep, and routinely subjected to a severe winter so that the lower level of water can stay cold while the upper layer warms up in the spring." The seiche in Lake Champlain can easily bring debris, logs, and vegetation from the lake's bottom up to the surface. How could a sunken log act like a living creature, suddenly surfacing for a few minures and then sinking again? Jerry Monk, a British hydrographic surveyor, provides an expert's opinion on the matter: When a piece of wood is first immersed in water it has many gas-filled lacunae in its structure. Over time, this gas is absorbed in the water and diffuses out, increasing the density of the wood, eventually to the point where it becomes denser than water and sinks. If there is a thermocline (a region where the temperature falls rapidly with increasing depth) it is perfectly possible for the log to float in mid-water on the denser layer. Otherwise it will sink to the mud on the bottom. This environment tends to be anoxic (devoid of oxygen) and anaerobic bacteria get to work on it, producing methane as a by-product. Once the methane saturates the water, it will be produced as gas whose volume will depend inversely on the pressure. During the winter the waters of the lake cool down and, as water has its greatest density at 39 degrees F, water ofthat temperature will collect on the bottom while the surface may well be colder or frozen. In the spring the warming air will warm up the surface layer that was already less dense than the bottom water, and so there is no overturning, a well-defined thermocline developing instead. Also, as the surface waters warm up, bacterial activity increases and more methane is produced. Eventually a rotting log may get pockets of methane large enough to make it buoyant again and it will float slowly offthe bottom and rise with increasing speed as the pressure decreases and the methane bubbles enlarge.... Once the log has reached the surface, it will typically roll about a bit as the exposed parts reach a LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES balance with the centre of buoyancy, and the methane trapped within will leak out. This will lead to a gradual loss ofbuoyancy again and the log will gradually submerge, exactly as described by Mrs. Mansi. (Monk 2004) Part of the reason the Mansi photo is so striking is that we're used to seeing professional, unambiguous photography. The photographs the average person sees on a daily basis are the crisp, clear, retouched images in advertisements, on television, and in magazines. But photographs are simply two-dimensional representations of an object. We don't do nearly as well when confronted with ambiguous photos; tricks in perspective easily fool the eye. I believe that Sandra Mansi is an honest person who may have done what we all do from time to time: she misunderstood something she saw. The only thing that makes her case special is that she managed to get a photograph ofit. If the form she saw and photographed in the water had obviously been a floating tree stump or log, it would have been ignored or filed away. Instead, the visual ambiguities that tantalized Sandra Mansi in I977 remain in the photo today, ensuring its place in lake monster history. Some have suggested that the object can't be a log because that possibility was ruled out by "expert analysis." This misunderstanding may be the result of journalistic errors. For example, a United Press International report asserted that "experts at the University ofArizona sayan analysis indicated the picture is real and shows the image ofa live animal" (Lake's Champ I98I). According to another ill-informed writer, "The photograph was examined at the University of Chicago and the University ofArizona, and investigators at both schools said it showed some sort of animal life. While it was confirmed the creature in the Mansi photo was alive, its identity was not confirmed" (Sandra Mansi photograph 2002). Yet these findings don't appear in Frieden's report or anywhere else. What Frieden wrote was that the object didn't "appear to be a montage or superposition" and that it was almost certainly a real object in the lake; there was no statement to the effect that the object had been confirmed to be alive. LAKE CHAMPLAIN It's also fair to ask why the object looks like Champ in the first place. After all, this is supposedly the best image of the creature, and many eyewitness descriptions of Champ don't resemble the object in the Mansi photo at all. I showed a copy ofthe Mansi photo to Norm St. Pierre, our Lake Champlain guide, and asked him what it looked like. "It looks like Champ," he replied. I realized that it does indeed, and that assumption feeds a sort of loop whereby uncorroborated and uncertain evidence is used to support other suppositions: we don't know what Champ looks like, but if we see an unusual photo of something in the water that we can't explain, we're happy to call it Champ. Thus unverified reports, mistakes, and misidentifications all get thrown into the mix, with little justification for inclusion or exclusion. When I pressed St. Pierre for his best non-Champ guess, he replied, "Maybe a drifting tree" (St. Pierre 2002). He estimated that the object was about four feet out of the water, closely matching the estimate we eventually calculated. SONAR READINGS Sonar searches of Lake Champlain have, on rare occasions, picked up readings of seemingly strange or large objects at depth, but none have been verified as Champ signatures. These readings often occur after weeks or months of surveying, and given that much time and opportunity , the odds are good that some sort of unusual reading will occur just by chance. One problem with this sort of evidence is that sonar readings are imprecise and ambiguous by nature. Fortean Times writer Mike Dash (1997), reviewing the use ofsonar in the search for lake monsters, found that "such evidence will always be ambiguous because (a) it is difficult to be sure any given contact is not a false echo produced by sound waves bouncing offlake walls underwater; and (b) such contacts are not absolute indicators of size, but merely indicate variations in density: a small fish with a large swim-bladder can produce strong echoes." As one sonar technician told me during our search ofLake Okanagan (detailed in chapter 7), "sonar is halfimage and halfinterpretation." Said another 63 LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES during our investigation of Lake Simcoe in Canada, "The sooner you understand that a fish finder will lie to you, the sooner you understand a fish finder" (Clayton 2005). Because of this inherent ambiguity, most researchers emphasize other types of evidence. In June 2003, a group of researchers from a company called Fauna Communications Research claimed that they had detected a series of strangely high-pitched ticking and chirping noises, akin to those made by a beluga whale or a dolphin, in Lake Champlain. The team, led by Elizabeth von Muggenthaler, was at the lake with a Discovery Channel documentary crew. (In fact, Joe and I reproduced some of the lake experiments described here for the same crew; the resulting show, America's Loch Ness Monster, aired October 26, 2003.) The documentary group followed von Muggenthaler on several unsuccessful expeditions , violating scientific protocol at least once for the film crew's benefit. The team's announcement led to media speculation that solid evidence had finally been found for Champ; a local newspaper headlined, "Champ Might Be for Real after All." Although von Muggenthaler declined to guess the size or shape ofthe creature-or confirm that it was indeed Champ-she said, "What we got was a biological creature creating biosonar at a level that only a few underwater species can do." The sounds were presumed to be the result of a type of echolocation, the means by which some animals seek food. The biosonar, she said, was ten times louder than that ofany known species offish in the lake. And although mechanical devices and fish finders can simulate the readings , von Muggenthaler stated that the irregular sequence they detected ruled out such an explanation. "Man-made sonar or fish-finders send out a signal that is very regular, and entirely different than biologically produced sonar" (von Muggenthaler 2oo4b). The fact that von Muggenthaler suggested that the sound resembled a beluga whale is interesting. Though no beluga whales have been reported in Lake Champlain, they do exist in the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is linked to the lake. I contacted von Muggenthaler to learn more about her findings and to ascertain in what ways the sounds are different from those made by whales and dolphins. She explained: LAKE CHAMPLAIN When analyzing animal vocalizations, one looks at basically three components, frequency, amplitude, and time.... The differences between the [Lake Champlain] signal and [signals of] dolphin, killer whale, and beluga whale have to do with frequency, some higher, some lower; amplitude (killer whales are louder, beluga and dolphin are less loud); and, with regard to time, the Lake Champlain signal fell somewhere in the middle of these three. . . . I have no idea what is in Lake Champlain. What I do know is that to date, animals that we know of that use echolocation underwater are carnivores, have impressive communication centers in the brain, and inhabit marine environs, not freshwater. (von Muggenthaler 2004a) It's unclear what to make ofthis evidence. As ofthis writing, the recordings haven't been fully analyzed, and the findings haven't appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Obviously, anomalous readings by themselves don't indicate the presence of a monster. At several points in their search, strange biosonar readings yielded no creature sightings at all. The Discovery Channel documentary shows von Muggenthaler's crew detecting an unusual high-frequency pitch and immediately dispatching two divers to investigate the source of the sound. If unusual readings did in fact indicate the presence of a monstrous creature, the divers presumably would have seen it. Yet despite an hour's search, the divers "saw nothing strange, just the usual fish." CONCLUSION I don't flatly discount the idea of large, unknown creatures in Lake Champlain; it's possible that-despite a nearly complete lack of good evidence-such creatures exist. However, given what we know about the Mansi photograph (the best evidence to date) and its circumstances, of all the possible things the object could be-animal, tree, or something else-the least likely explanation is an unknown creature that has managed to elude detection for decades. It's probably a familiar feature on the lake seen and photographed from an unfamiliar angle. LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES It's interesting to note that in the nearly three decades since the Mansi photo was taken, that image remains the best. Lake Champlain has had a dramatic increase in the traffic on and population around the lake; cameras are cheaper, better, and more widely available than ever before. If a group of giant unknown creatures is in fact living in the lake, it seems odd that another one hasn't been better photographed since then. There is also the fact that many people who have spent large amounts of time searching in and on the lake have never seen Champ. For every old-timer who swears he's seen the monster, there's another who has spent just as much time on the lake and never seen a thing. At Lake Champlain (as at Loch Ness and Lake Okanagan), there is an economic incentive to keep the lake monster legend alive. There is an annual Champ Day event and parade at Port Henry, New York. In most of the communities around the lake, Champ is regarded as a regional mascot, a friendly lake creature all their own. Champ images can be found on the sides of buildings, on signs, and elsewhere. The legend of Champ has also been kept alive by newspapers eager to exploit the story, court readers, and drum up tourism. One such paper was the Burlington Free Press: "Whenever the Champ seemed destined to be regulated [sic] to the realm of mythology, it was E. F. Crane, editorial writer for the Burlington Free Press, who would come to the mobster's [sic] rescue. Wrote Mr. Crane, 'This effort to debunk, eliminate and permanently bury the Lake Champlain Monster will not work. ... If Loch Ness can have its Monster and capitalize on it year after year, is there any reason why Lake Champlain can't have one too?'" (Furlow 1977, 61). Robert Bartholomew, a sociologist who has lived on the shore of Lake Champlain for years, believes that the continued interest in Champ serves several symbolic functions for the New York and Vermont residents living near the lake: Champ's very existence and persistence over centuries in the wake of demanding evidence from scientists who require conclusive proof, serves as an anti-scientific symbol. ... Champ is in some ways a reflection of the region's collective imagination. 66 LAKE CHAMPLAIN Given the widespread beliefin Champ across the region, in the absence ofunambiguous proofofits reality, the ongoing search may tell us more about the hunters than the hunted. In this regard, the Champ mystery is not likely to be solved by scouring Lake Champlain in hopes of seeing a prehistoric aquatic creature, but by turning away from the lake and examining the human mind, and what deep-seated psychological needs are being fulfilled. (Bartholomew 2003). Bartholomew believes that Champ is, among other things, an environmental symbol highlighting the delicate balance that exists in nature and the need to protect and preserve endangered species. This view is supported by the unanimous efforts of Champ proponents to protect the lake environment Ooe Zarzynski pushed through a government resolution protecting the creature; Sandra Mansi often speaks ofthe importance of protecting the lake's ecology, as does Dennis Jay Hall). Piece by piece, the Champ mythos comes apart. The original sighting by Samuel de Champlain has been shown to be a fiction, the result of journalistic error. The contention of a long tradition of Champ sightings has been disproved. No bodies or bones have been found. The object in the Mansi photograph, the best photo of any lake monster anywhere, is revealed though field research to be less than half the size originally claimed, and an analysis of the account and the photo show that the object didn't act or look like an animal. All we are left with are occasional sightings of unknown-but not unexplainable-objects in the lake and the firm belief that Champ lives in its depths. Some of those looking for Champ will continue to find it; all the evidence they need can be found in and around the lake's cold waters. REFERENCES Bartholomew, Robert. 2003. Personal communication, February 6. Binns, Ronald. I984. The Loch Ness mystery solved. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Blackman, W Haden. I998. Thefieldguide to North American monsters. New York: Random House, 54-56. LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES Champ unmasked. N.d. Plattsburgh Press-Republican newspaper clipping, ca. 1984, with photo ofdriftwood resembling prototypical Champ monster. Clark, Jerome, 1983. America's water monsters: The new evidence. In Mysteries and monsters ofthe sea: True storiesfrom the files ofFate magazine. 1988. Edited by Frank Spacth. New York: Gramercy Books, 55-64. ---. 1993. Unexplained! 347 strange sightings, incredible occurrences, and puzzlingphysicalphenomena . Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 61-67. Clark, Jerome, and Nancy Pear. 1995. Strange and unexplained happenings: When nature breaks the rules ofscience. Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research. Clayton, Jerry. 2005. Interview by Benjamin Radford and Joe Nickell, August 27. Coleman, Loren. 1983. Mysterious America. Winchester, Mass.: Faber and Faber, 85-92. Dash, Mike. 1997. Lake monsters. Fortean Times 102 (September): 28. Forrest, Thomas H. 2002. Interview by Joe Nickell, August 3. Frieden, B. Roy. 1981. Interim report: Lake Champlain "monster" photograph. Appendix 2 in Zarzynski, Joseph. 1984. Champ: Beyond the legend. Port Henry , N.Y.: Bannister Publications. Furlow, Herbert M. 1977. Has anybody seen the Champ of Lake Champlain? In Secrets ofLoch Ness, No. 1. New York: Histrionic Publishing Co. Godin, Alfred J. 1983. Wild mammals ofNew England. Chester, Conn.: Globe Pequot Press, 173. Gould, Rupert T. 1976. The Loch Ness monster and others. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press. Grant, John. 1992. Monster mysteries. Secaucus, N.J.: Chartwell Books. Green, Susan. 1999. Lake creature eludes centuries of searchers. Burlington Free Press, June 25. www.s-t.com/daily/07-99/072599/c03wn084.htm. Greenwell, J. Richard. 1992. Quoted on UnsolvedMysteries, National Broadcasting Company, September 23. Hall, Dennis Jay. 2000. Champ quest: The ultimate search. Jericho, Vt.: Essence of Vermont. ---. 2003. Personal communication, February 1. Hollowell, Laura. 2002. Interview by Joe Nickell, August 24. "John," Va/cour ferry deckhand. 2002. Interview by Joe Nickell and Benjamin Radford, August 26. Kirk, John. 1998. In the domain ofthe lake monsters. Toronto: Key Porter Books. Kojo, Yasushi. 1991. Some ecological notes on reported large unknown animals in Lake Champlain. Cryptozoology 10:42-45. Lake Champlain hydrographic contour map. N.d. North, central, and south sections . N.p.: Fishing Hot Spots. Lake's Champ reported seen. 1981. Plattsburgh Press-Republican, ca. April 18. LeBlond, Paul H. 1982. An estimate of the dimensions of the Lake Champlain monster from the length of adjacent wind waves in the Mansi photograph. Cryptozoology 1:54-61. LeBlond, Paul H., and Michael J. Collins. 1987. The Wilson Nessie photo: A size 68 LAKE CHAMPLAIN determination based on physical principles. Cryptozoology 6:55-64. Mansi, Sandra. 2002. Interview by Benjamin Radford, August 24. Meurger, Michel, and Claude Gagnon. 1988. Lake monster traditions: A cross-cultural analysis. London: Fortean Tomes. Monk, Jerry. 2004. Letter to the editor. Fortean Times 185 (July): 76. Myth or monster. 1972. Time 20:66. Nickell, Joe. 1994. Camera clues: A handbookfor photographic investigation. Lexington : University Press of Kentucky, 169-72. ---. 1996. Nessie hoax redux. Skeptical Briefs 6, no. 1 (March): 1-2. ---.2001. Real-life X-jiles: Investigating theparanormal. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Owen, Elizabeth. 1982. In search of a monster. Life (August): 32-36. Porter, Marjorie L. 1970. The Champlain monster. Vermont Life 24, no. 4 (summer ): 47-50. Sandra Mansi photograph. 2002. True authority: The site of scientific authority. www.trueauthority.com/cryptozoology/sandra.htm. Smith, Richard D. 198+ Testing an underwater video system at Lake Champlain. Cryptozoology 3:89-93. St. Pierre, Norm. 2002. Interview by Benjamin Radford, August 25. Teresi, Dick. 1998. Monster of the tub. Discover 19, no. 4 (April): 87-92. Vachon, Brian. 1977. In search of the Champlain monster. Yankee Magazine (November ): 136-39, 2II-16. von Muggenthaler, E. 2oo4a. E-mail to Benjamin Radford, November 16. 2004b. Lake Champlain research. www.animalvoice.coml lakechamplain.htm. Whitaker, John O. Jr. 1996. National Audubon Society field guide to North American mammals. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Williams, H., E. Loftus, and K. Deffenbacher. 1992. Eyewitness evidence and testimony. In Handbook ofpsychology and law. Edited by D. Kagehiro and W Laufer. New York: Springer-Verlag. Wooldridge, A. B. 1987. The Yeti: A rock after all? Cryptozoology 6:135. Zarzynski, Joseph. 1982. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1982. Cryptozoology 1:7377 · ---. 1983. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1983. Cryptozoology 2:126-31. ---. 1984a. Champ: Beyond the legend. Port Henry, N.Y.: Bannister Publications . ---. 1984b. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1984. Cryptozoology 3:80-83. ---. 1985. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1985. Cryptozoology 4:69-73- ---. 1986. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1986. Cryptozoology 5:77-80. ---. 1987. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1987. Cryptozoology 6:71-77. ---. 1988a. Champ: Beyond the legend. 2nd ed. Port Henry, N.Y.: Bannister Publications. ---. 1988b. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1988. Cryptozoology 7:70-77. ---. 1989. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1989. Cryptozoology 8:67-72. LAKE MONSTER MYSTERIES ---. 1992. LCPI work at Lake Champlain, 1991-1992. Cryptozoology II:I028 . Zug, George. 1981. Does Champ exist? Seminar in Shelburne, Vt., August 29, cited in Zarzynski 1984a, 80. 70 ...