3 Responses

  1. rebartholomew
    rebartholomew July 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm |

    I wish to respectfully disagree with Loren Coleman’s characterization of my book, The Untold Story of Champ (State University of New York Press, Dec. 2012) as “debunking” of the Sandra Mansi photo. I would simply say, it is what it is. I wrote the book without any preconceived conclusions. Halfway through writing it, I was actually of the view that there is an unclassified or surviving prehistoric creature in the lake (besides sturegon), and in the end I conclude that it is certainly possible although not likely. The fact is, there are serious questions and inconsistencies surrounding the Mansi photo and story that I point out in the book.

    It is worth noting that I contacted Sanda Mansi through her lawyer for an interview to clear up these questions and my request was declined. Until these questions are addressed, we must be very cautious. While the state of newspaper journalism is in decline, I for one do not know why any journalist has not contacted SM to ask for her comment the questions raised in the book.

    Here is a golden opportunity for Cryptozoologists to make a major contribution to their field and interview Ms. Mansi on these claims. Whatever I have written in the book, it can in no way be accurately characterized as debunking.


    Robert Bartholomew

  2. alanborky
    alanborky July 28, 2013 at 8:52 pm |

    By god talk about photogenic!

    You not Mansi’s Monster!

    So bloody cool you should’a’ been rockstar!

    I’d just like to observe here though Loren as an artist and as someone with an interest in botany to the degree I spent years growing trees from the seed stage just so I could observe how they grew under different conditions that whatever the Mansi picture is it almost certainly is NOT a branch on a tree trunk as some’ve supposed.

    For a start branches only assume that embracing arm style curvature if they’ve been carefully trained that way and even then their subbranches’ll continue to grow as normal unless they too’re trained or pruned.

    But even pruning leaves nobbly sequences where the branches’d started sprouting.

    But the other thing is branches essentially dispose and extend themselves in gradually tapering essentially angular and geometric arrangements and if the ‘head’ of the ‘monster’ was a branch then the end of the branch wouldn’t be wider or broader than the base of the branch but actually tapered to a thin point.

    Nor can the ‘head’ be some kind of a leaf because leaves essentially grow at something like right angles to the branch including the terminal leaf.

    I don’t know what it is but it ain’ a branch.

  3. pogsquatch
    pogsquatch July 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm |

    I wish to respectfully disagree with Robert Bartholomew’s characterization of his book.
    I personally found it to be like UFO’s Condon report, only for Lake Monsters instead of Flying Saucers.
    I thought that Loren’s review was very gentlemanly and gracious, like Loren himself.
    This book is very one-sided, as if it were written by a Sociologist with an agenda. Worth getting if you’re into Lake Monsters, but NOT the final word as some have reviewed on Amazon. For what’s it worth (nothing) I had my 2 cents about it at their site. Smart guy though.

Comments are closed.