champ+o

=__ Champ Analysis __=

Champ is a creature that is well known, but hardly ever seen. To see this creature, and take a decent picture of it, is very rare. So when one gets such a great photo, like Sandra Mansi did, then people will start to look into it more and try to dig deeper. This article is how some people think Sandra’s photo is not actually of Champ, but of something else… like a log. This entire thing has multiple different views to it. I think that all this can be explained using the ecological theory in the Grand Theories in Psychology. This concept suggests that individual knowledge is based on the type of guidance that has been provided and that as a whole affects the individual’s choices. One point of view in the article is Sandra Mansi herself. She believes that her photo is actually of Champ. She is just a regular, average lady. She has probably been guided to hold on to the assumption that "seeing is believing". She was the one there to take the photo, and she firmly believes that was actually Champ. Other viewpoints, however, are from people that are from universities with majors in optical science and oceanography. These people have been guided to assume "there’s more then meets the eye". These other people that question the authenticity of Sandra’s photo are the type that believe in unwavering facts. Things must be proven to be true. Which is different than what Sandra thinks. They all have been guided along different ways of thinking, and that has affected their decision on whether or not Sandra’s photo is really of Champ.

back to champ article back to Champ back to sea serpents back to urban legends