I found a weird aquatic animal: look at pics

[Oxcart]

I am a believer that there are things in the waters of the world that have yet to be discovered, and I decided to use Google Earth to see if I could find anything odd. On my very first try, within a few minutes of searching, I found something that I cannot identify.

It is roughly just under 50ft according to the scale, and clearly has an eyeball. It isn't a whale. It isn't anything that I can identify.

I'm going to keep the location a secret for now until I hear what people (hopefully) more knowledgeable than myself think of this animal.

One pic is a widescreen show to clearly show it isn't a weird wave, and that it is an animal. The second pic is a zoomed in shot with the scale next to the animal. If you look, you can clearly see an eyeball on the animal.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

On my very first try, within a few minutes of searching, I found something that I cannot identify.

I bet I can beat that record!

 

[oldrover]

It's a wave.

 

[Oxcart]

Its a 6ft tall wave in calm water with the other waves barely about 1ft......... If you scan the entire surrounding waters, there is nothing that tall. The waters are very very calm.

If you look at the head, it has bilateral symmetry and an eyeball exactly where one would expect to find one. It appears to have a ridge over the eye that is also on the other side of the head.

 

[Swifty]

It does look pretty cool, the capture that is ... I'd love to know the location though ? .... please don't tease because Forteans don't like details deliberately being held back .. a friendly request to you, thanks in advance Oxcart. Until then, it's impressive simulacra .. nice find!

 

[Coastaljames]

I think it's more likely to be a wave than an animal.

And in the event that it's an animal then more likely to be a whale than a...


You seem to have made your mind up though. Which on such scant evidence, whilst your perogative, seems odd.

But thanks for sharing

 

[Oxcart]

It isn't a wave. It is something beneath the water that looks like its surfacing. Look how calm the waters are except for the "hump" sticking out like a sore thumb.

See the three smaller disturbances behind it. My first thought was it was a traveling pod, but the resolution it too poor on those features.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Baleen whales.

 

[Spookdaddy]

It appears to me that if you mask the white area in the image, the 'body' of the alleged creature is absorbed completely into the general pattern of the surrounding image, which, to my mind, strongly suggests the whole thing is a simulacrum triggered by that white area. What the white area could be is open to question: it could be debris - but I also wonder if the drag lines across the surface of the water (top to bottom at a slight diagonal in the two less magnified images) suggest that there is a strongish wind at surface level, which might create random/erratic surf patterns at peaks in the swell. (Rynner, you old sea-dog - could you tell me if I'm talking bollocks on that one?)

 

[oldrover]

Its a 6ft tall wave in calm water with the other waves barely about 1ft......... If you scan the entire surrounding waters, there is nothing that tall. The waters are very very calm.

If you look at the head, it has bilateral symmetry and an eyeball exactly where one would expect to find one. It appears to have a ridge over the eye that is also on the other side of the head.

Oxcart, how are you measuring wave height? I admit to having no idea how you'd do that, but I've lived by the sea my whole life and know that larger waves are not unusual. Also, I don't agree that sea is calm, it's not particularly violent, but there is a definite chop to it.

I can't see it as a head, I can only see a bit of white on a wave.

Realistically I think this is just a wave, and equally I think the idea of your having found, on your

very first try, within a few minutes of searching, I found something that I cannot identify.

Pretty telling. I think if you keep looking you'll find other such examples.

 

[Coastaljames]

It isn't a wave.

I think it could be. Or some flotsam. Or an animal of sorts. Or anything. or nothing.

 

[rynner2]

What the white area could be is open to question: it could be debris - but I also wonder if the drag lines across the surface of the water (top to bottom at a slight diagonal in the two less magnified images) suggest that there is a strongish wind at surface level, which might create random/erratic surf patterns at peaks in the swell. (Rynner, you old sea-dog - could you tell me if I'm talking bollocks on that one?)

I don't see any evidence for 'strongish' winds. Occassional small breakers can occur from Force 3 upwards, and become more frequent as wind speeds increase. And waves generally occur at right angles to the wind direction.

The 'animal' could be a whale of some sort, but there's not enough detail for even an expert to make an identification. I can't even make out the 'eye'.

It's probably the Loch Ness Monster taking a Spring break in the open sea!

 

[Coastaljames]

I can't even make out the 'eye'.

Glad it's not just me then!

 

[Spookdaddy]

Glad it's not just me then!

Or me.

I don't see any evidence for 'strongish' winds. Occassional small breakers can occur from Force 3 upwards, and become more frequent as wind speeds increase. And waves generally occur at right angles to the wind direction...

Ah, right. Just out of interest - what are those lines I mentioned?; I think they are most obvious in the image contained in Oxcart's most recent post.

 

[Oxcart]

1. Those lines in the water are everywhere. There are no boats nearby. The lake is full of lines.

2. I don't know why I am the only person who see a round dark eyeball on the white head.

3. It's very easy to judge the height of the object by rotation the 50ft scale and taking into account a "fudge" factor and taking into account the calm waters waves are likely < 1ft. Also using the < 1ft wave height the object is roughly 6 -7 times more tall.

4. It isn't a whale. It's Lake Champlain.

5. Keep in mind Google Earth can mess with colors on 'small" objects like boats. Sometimes the boats are not even visible but the wakes are... I don't understand enough of the science to explain or elaborate. So the object may appear in the image to be the same exact color as the water but it isn't. I did an invert color function in PAINT and the shape of the creature stuck and was obviously a different color than the water all across the top portion. It even appeared to have a tail but insufficient data to make a conclusion.

 

[Mythopoeika]

4. It isn't a whale. It's Lake Champlain.

OK, thanks for finally letting us know.

 

[rynner2]

Or me.

Ah, right. Just out of interest - what are those lines I mentioned?; I think they are most obvious in the image contained in Oxcart's most recent post.

Not sure. In higher winds (Force 7 and up, you'll see foam streaks on the water which do align with the wind direction.)
But when winds are light there can be calm patches, probably in the lee of what small waves there are.
Sailing boat sailors (especially when racing) spend a lot of time examining the sea surface for clues as to where the wind is (or might be!)

 

[rynner2]

4. It isn't a whale. It's Lake Champlain.

Ah! We have a thread on that:

http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/lake-champlains-champ.14260/#post-357564

 

[Coastaljames]

It's Lake Champlain.

How can we know?


For the record- thanks for making the effort to start this thread- it's good stuff.

Please don't think people are doubting that you might have found something strange, I think people are more doubting your total conviction that you have. Two different things.

 

[Oxcart]

Furthermore, the object was found (I'm estimating) 1/4 mile offshore from Appletree Bay. Additionally if you go into Google Earth and attempt to look for it, you will not find it. I found it in an, for lack of a better term, "archived image database".

 

[Oxcart]

How can we know?


For the record- thanks for making the effort to start this thread- it's good stuff.

Please don't think people are doubting that you might have found something strange, I think people are more doubting your total conviction that you have. Two different things.

I understand!

Just a brief few factoids about me is that I am a physicist and an engineer. I know nothing of aquatic sciences or biology. I was very bored at work one day and wanted to look at Lake Champlain for "weird" things. I saw the Bodette video and it convinced me that there is something in the lake. I have heard of sightings near Appletree Bay and I decided to go looking in that area (not using the "live" Google Earth but an archived database). Within about 5 minutes I saw what I saw. Blew it up and saw what appears to be a huge eye and bilateral symmetry on what would be the head.

If people are convinced it's an animal, I suppose that I can give instructions on how to find it on the internet. It's not easy to find! Even knowing where it is, it can take a lot of searching for me to relocate it. Plus you have to be zoomed to the at minimum/maximum the 100ft scale so you can't search large swaths of area at a time.

 

[Coastaljames]

I saw the Bodette video and it convinced me that there is something in the lake.

Within about 5 minutes I saw what I saw.

Do you think these two things might be at all connected?

 

[Oxcart]

Do you think these two things might be at all connected?

It does not look like the Bodette creature. The original video has been removed from the internet and all that remains looks like a poor VHS copy. But the Bodette creature had a long skinny neck like a long neck turtle and had a flipper visible in the final seconds.

This thing is totally different and larger. It looks like a type of whale that isn't in the archive as of yet.

I also searched Lake Champlain for monsters with white heads, and there are references to the creature being spotted with white heads.

 

[Coastaljames]

It does not look like the Bodette creature.

No, but you admit to being "convinced" there was something "weird" in the lake and when you looked "within a few minutes of searching" you found something weird in the lake.

It just seems that those two things might be connected to me.




Or that there might be something weird in the lake of course.

 

[Oxcart]

No, but you admit to being "convinced" there was something "weird" in the lake and when you looked "within a few minutes of searching" you found something weird in the lake.

It just seems that those two things might be connected to me.




Or that there might be something weird in the lake of course.

I've searched the lake many, many, many times and found nothing. This isn't the first time I said, "Oh hey lets take a look." This is the first time I've searched the lake in years. I heard of sightings near Appletree Bay which is why I searched that area.

How can anyone not think there is an unidentified creature after seeing the Bodette video?

Besides, this isn't a case of someone standing on the shore and see a weird wave and telling everyone they saw the "monster". There is empirical and "physical" evidence, i.e. photos.

Just because I believe there is something unknown in the lake doesn't make it possible for my mind to manipulate satellite imagery. My beliefs are invariant on the photos.

As I said, I am a physicist. I have worked on theories that I thought were correct only to disprove them myself. I am not an amateur.

I cannot disprove the photo has a whale like body shape with an odd head that has all the features in all the right places including an eye, a ridge over the eye, a snout, an apparently another ridge over where the other eye would be assuming bilateral symmetry.

I have seen fish in these images over the years. I have seen bouys in these images over the years. This is the first time I have seen something I think is an unknown animal.

 

[oldrover]

How can anyone not think there is an unidentified creature after seeing the Bodette video?

Well, we haven't seen the Bodette video. If we had then we'd be able to asses it, but as it stands we can't.

Just because I believe there is something unknown in the lake doesn't make it possible for my mind to manipulate satellite imagery.

It does mean though, that your mind can be pre-disposed to interpret any satellite images you see as being evidence of something unusual.

 

[kamalktk]

It's a wave.

Well, we haven't seen the Bodette video. If we had then we'd be able to asses it, but as it stands we can't

This seems to be the video in question:

 

[Coastaljames]

How can anyone not think there is an unidentified creature after seeing the Bodette video?

For a thousand reasons. One of which being the video doesn't really show anything?

I've searched the lake many, many, many times and found nothing...This is the first time I've searched the lake in years. I heard of sightings near Appletree Bay which is why I searched that area.

Yet in your first post you said this was your "very first try". I'm a bit confused.

There is empirical and "physical" evidence, i.e. photos.

The only thing there is evidence for is that there is something you don't understand in that pic. Which is absolutely fine! To categorically state that it proves there is a mystery creature in the lake? Doesn't add up. As someone trained in science I'm surprised you don't think that.

 

[Swifty]

I noticed a black pixilated square where an eye would be if it is the head of a creature .. I've looked for other black squares and there a quite a few of them in that capture although that doesn't absolutely rule out that the white shape black square isn't an eye. Thanks for sharing.

edit: here's some pics of baleen whales as per Mytho's previous suggestion, I haven't found a pic of one with a white head yet though but there might be some ?..

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=b...qd3TAhUMJsAKHXbbCrwQ_AUIBigB&biw=1242&bih=602

 

[Roland Deschain]

There are Google Earth shots of whales. They tend to show motion - like a wake. They also have more visible shape below water. To lack any wake or distrurbance they will have to be moving sideways with the surrounding waves and drifting. Odd.

There just isn't enough resolution in the OP's pics to be certain of anything and to my eyes they are not sufficiently differentiated from the surrounding waves to be anything other than just more waves, breaking on one edge.