Without doubt, one of the strangest pieces of testimony relating to the field of Cryptozoology came from a man named Charles Flood. The story is particularly controversial because of the fact that it involves not just one kind of weird beast, but two. And, in the same time-frame, no less. It was in September 1957 that Flood - who was a resident of New Westminster, British Columbia - put together an amazing and controversial document on those aforementioned creatures of the weird kind. It was a story which had its origins when Flood was a young man, more than forty years earlier. Nevertheless, according to Flood, his memory was as good in 1957 as it was all those decades earlier. He came straight to the point and stated:
"I, Charles Flood of New Westminster (formerly of Hope) declare the following story to be true: I am 75 years of age and spent most of my life prospecting in the local mountains to the south of Hope, toward the American boundary and in the Chilliwack Lake area. In 1915, Donald McRae and Green Hicks of Agassiz, B.C. and myself, explored an area over an unknown divide, on the way back to Hope, near the Holy Cross Mountains. Green Hicks, a half-breed Indian, told McRae and me a story, he claimed he had seen alligators at what he called Alligator Lake, and wild humans at what he called Cougar Lake. Out of curiosity we went with him; he had been there a week previous looking for a fur trap line. Sure enough, we saw his alligators, but they were black, twice the size of lizards in a small mud lake."
That was far from being the end of the story, however. If Flood was speaking accurately and truthfully, he and his friends didn't just see those curious alligator-like things. They may well have seen a Bigfoot, too. Of course, it's amazing enough to see one unknown animal. But two types? Yep, highly unlikely. Impossible? Who knows? Flood continued with his saga:
"Awhile further up was Cougar Lake. Several years before a fire swept over many square miles of mountains which resulted in large areas of mountain huckleberry growth. Green Hicks suddenly stopped us and drew our attention to a large, light brown creature about 8 feet high, standing on its hind legs (standing upright) pulling the berry bushes with one hand or paw toward him and putting berries in his mouth with the other hand, or paw. I stood still wondering, and McRae and Green Hicks were arguing."
The three hardly agreed on what it was they were seeing, as Flood admitted: "Hicks said 'It is a wild man,' and McRae said 'It is a bear.' As far as I am concerned the strange creature looked more like a human being. We seen several black and brown bear on the trip, but that thing looked altogether different. Huge brown bear are known to be in Alaska, but have never been seen in southern British Columbia."
That is the essence of what Flood had to say. But, if this wasn't a practical joke, then what is it that Flood and his two friends encountered? We'll begin with that "creature about 8 feet high." It seems highly unlikely that this could have been a man. Six and a half feet tall? Sure, that's entirely possible. But eight feet in height? Doubtful! It's intriguing too that the three were unable to figure out what it was: bear, human, or wild man. That the giant creature was brown in color and was picking berries is far more suggestive of something non-human, but human-like. Maybe they really were lucky enough to have encountered a Bigfoot. Now, let's turn to those black-colored alligators.
I guess that the three could have seen a black caiman, which is a crocodilian. There are genuine cases of such creatures reaching lengths of fifteen feet. There are rumors and tales of such beasts reaching twenty-feet in length. The problem, though, is that - regardless of their lengths - they live in South America, and not in British Columbia. How would they have got to what was referred to as Alligator Lake? Could they have lived in two areas of distinctly different climates? If not a black caiman, then what?
There's a black salamander, but it's a very small creature. Nevertheless, Steve Plambeck has suggested that the creatures of Loch Ness might be giant salamanders. Salamanders are amphibians that are noted for their long tails, blunt heads, and short limbs and which – in the case of the Chinese giant salamander – can reach lengths of six feet. But, is it possible that some salamanders could grow much larger? Steve thinks this is very possible and says:
"Nessie is a bottom dwelling, water breathing animal that spends very little time on the surface or in mid-water, although just enough to be spotted visually or by sonar on very rare occasions. Its forays up from the depths are most likely made along the sides of the Loch, to feed on the fish which are predominantly found along the sides, in shallower water above the underwater cliffs that precipitously drop off into the 750 foot abyss. Such behavior is only consistent with a fish, or aquatic amphibian, which can extract all of its needed oxygen directly from the water."
Today, years after the alleged sightings of (A) an eight-foot-tall, brown-colored figure on two legs, and (B) unknown water-based beasts, we are really no wiser than Flood and his friends were way back then.