The Ogopogo “Lake Monster” |
Treatment of these eyewitness testimonies of the Canadian cryptid named “Ogopogo”, resembles many of the reactions some people have to the ropen or duwas sightings in Papua New Guinea, or the Sasquatch sightings of North America. Evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony is all too often treated as if it were non-evidence, unfortunately. |
It’s common practice for many major documen- tary producers to either ignore the possibility of living pterosaurs or dinosaurs or to treat unortho- dox sightings as if unreliable, simply because what is described seems to be a dinosaur or a pterosaur. A recent episode of “Proof Positive” ended with a conclusion that was surprising only to those who are not aware of this tendency for standard models to dominate media productions.
It was admirable that they featured several eye- witness testimonies involving some dramatic sightings on Lake Okanagan in Canada. It was also interesting to see several strange breaking waves surrounded by calm water on the lake. When the footage was analyzed by a forensic videographer, however, it seems that the eye- witness testimony was mostly ignored. These video segments were taken out of context, as if there were no eyewitnesses of the lake mon- ster known as Ogopogo.
Of course, with a name like “Proof Positive”, it would be expected that the producers or writers were looking for irrefutable evidence. It may be, however, that standard model philosophy, which is treated as if it were scientific fact, in the media and in many classrooms in America, is playing a part in how these investigations are done by the major documentary producers.
This television program ended with a limited analytical reasoning on the videos of the large waves. One of the questionable assumptions used in coming to their conclusions was that for unusual waves to be relevant to the investi- gation, they need to show the continuous move- ment of one large creature that moves quickly near the surface for a period of time. Whales and other large oceanic creatures don’t always move this way. Neither are they always found as lone individuals. Why would Ogopogo be very different in behavior? Why should the producers of Proof Positive use such strange assumptions?
The main point in the program’s side of the case (for doubting the existence of a large unknown creature living in the lake) appeared to be in the hands of one forensic videographer who had analyzed some of the video footage of waves on the lake. This expert did not seem to have done any analysis of eyewitness testimony. He did not seem to have been involved with any analysis of the underwater sonar sightings that seemed to be credible evidence for one large creature moving in the depths of the lake. He only analyzed some of the video footage, most of which was of major wave action surrounded by calm water. He did not find evidence for one lone creature in any continuous swimming activity just beneath the surface of the lake. That was it.
Some important points that were not taken into account in this Proof Positive episode:
1) The Ogopogo phenomenon may very well be of a group of creatures, rather than just one lone individual. 2) Waves do not need continuous energy input in order to continue existing. 3) Wind over the surface of a lake creates moderate to large areas of small ripples, not a very small area of a few large waves. 4) All evidence should be considered if we seek to draw an objective conclusion. 5) The question should be: “Is a large un- known creature(s) living in this lake?”, not “Does this video footage show any continuous monster activity right here.”
Each of the above points is relevant either to the program-side or the cryptozoologist-side. The presentation by Proof Positive is not objective research to try to explain this phenomenon, but may be an attempt to protect standard-model philosophy that is threatened by evidence.
Fortunately smaller producers are more likely to dare to consider unconventional possibilities and hopefully take a more objective position in both presenting and especially evaluating evidence. |
Ogopogo on Proof Positive |
Considering the question, “Is there one or more large, scientifically unclassified/unacknowledged creatures living in Lake Okanagan?”, what does an objective evaluation of the evidence suggest? The evidence presented on Proof Positive is in three types:
1) Eyewitness testimony 2) Underwater sonar findings 3) Video, photos, and home movie footage
Although not all of these evidences gave solid support to an affirmative answer, many of them very much did so. Nothing in the program gave any valid reason to disbelieve in the creature(s).
By setting aside the irrelevant circumventions of the producers, an objective analysis of the evidences suggests an unusual large creature or creatures live in this lake. Ancient legends of “Ogopogo” may lend credence to this.
What about the expert’s analysis of the waves? One of his assumptions is that there is either one large creature or none. He does not consider the possibility of several of them together. This has led him to dismiss one or more of the videos as not supporting the “monster” case. His idea of wind and swimming fish together, as being one possible cause of a few large waves, is hard to imagine reasonably. Not only is it not natural for wind to be concentrated in the way shown on the video, it would not be natural for fish to be found at that precise location, swimming in the same direction, reinforcing such action.
To those who have observed rivers and lakes, these waves are made by either *boat wake or by some large object just under the surface. Wind may cause a moderate to large area of a lake to have ripples or small waves, but not an extremely limited area to have just two or three large breaking waves. (*No boats were in the area at the time of videotaping.)
It is much more reasonable to conclude there was one or more large creatures that either just broke the surface or were near the surface, and that their activity caused the wave action. It is not important that a creature may not have been swimming quickly at one location, just beneath the surface, for a considerable period of time.
The theory that the wave action was caused by one or more large aquatic creatures is entirely consistent with the eyewitness testimony. More than one person who has seen “Ogopogo” on the surface of Lake Okanagan, has described it in terms of a very large creature. |
Ogopogo more objectively |
Cryptozoology and living dinosaurs and pterosaurs |
Ogopogo is not the only candidate for being a living dinosaur. Several areas in Africa, South American, and the Southwest Pacific may be remote enough to harbor dinosaurs and ptero- suars sufficiently to make any major discovery by Westerners difficult. Not only is this a real possibility, but numerous reports point to this extraordinary idea as being feasible.
If these dinosaurs and pterosaurs are still alive, why haven’t scientists brought this to light? Is there any valid reason that such an incredible thing as “living dinosaurs and pterosaurs” has not been proven by early in the 21st Century?
First, we need to remember that when many people in developed countries mention the word “science”, they often mean one or more of the standard models of Western science. An example: General Theory of Evolution, also known as Universal Common Ancestry. Not all scientists follow the standard models. Some have no confidence in them.
Second, funding for major expeditions usually comes from organizations that are aligned with standard model philosophy. They don’t usually have any inclination to hunt dinosaurs.
With many people in third world countries, however, Western standard models are not a consideration. People report what they see. What we would call dinosaur or pterosaur, people in undeveloped countries call Mokele- Mbembe or ropen. What may be an aquatic dinosaur, some call Ogopogo. |
http://www.livepterosaur.com/ogopogo |
The producers of Proof Positive are to be commended for what evidence was presented on the Ogopogo phenomenon. Much eyewitness testimony gave us a idea about what may live in this lake. We should consider the possibility that what the witnesses describe, may be a colony of aquatic creatures that include large individuals. |