Video of Iceland's lake monster


An Icelandic man captured video of what some suggest is the Lagarfljótsormur, a lake monster residing in the lake Lagarfljót in the eastern part of the country. Others suggest it's a fishing net. I prefer the former. Stories of the Lagarfljótsormur date back to 1345. From Iceland Review Online:

According to legend, it was at first a tiny worm which was placed on a ring of gold to make the gold grow.

When the owner of the ring returned she noticed to her great terror that the worm had grown immensely but not the gold. She tossed the ring and worm into Lagarfljót where the worm continued to grow.

Video here: "Er þetta Lagarfljótsormurinn?"(

English language news here: "Iceland 'Lake Monster' Captured on Film?" (Iceland Review Online)

UPDATE: Over at Cryptomundo, Loren Coleman says "Frankly, this video shows something that looks like a constructed snake-like object, with rigid sections, being propelled through the water." "Iceland River Monster? Or Robotic Hoax?"


  1. I sooooooooo desperately want this to be a “real” lake monster, but I dunno. Does anyone else ever recall seeing a video, similar to this, aired back in the 90’s on one of those “unsolved mystery” type shows that showed a LARGE sea snake type beastie, swimming towards the camera through a mangrove swamp? It had a rather large head with a frill around the neck, like those lizards. I only saw it once, but it stuck with me.

    1. The head looks like a viper type snake – triangular, with a pit. But jesus – it would be too cold for a snake. Robo-snake for a hoax? That is my money. If I saw a real monster  I wouldn’t stop taping until it was completely out of sight – especially if it is swimming towards land.

      It looks like it is swimming against the flow or at least perpendicular to it. So I don’t think it is a net or other inanimate object.

      ETA – this wasn’t meant as a reply to you – oops

    2. The obvious first step in identification is to see if a dozen coos have been mysteriously milked in the neighborhood.

  2. Why is it quirky and fun and counterculture to “choose to believe” in a legend like this one (or, at least, to  not mock it outright), but it’s totally ridiculous and a sign of willful ignorance to believe in something like Creationism?  I ask because, as far as I can tell, both have the same amount of proof backing them up.

    1. True – but one has a much greater amount of plausibility, as well as not having a mountain of evidence against it.

      1. There is a lot of evidence against Young Earth Creationism, but that’s my point — we have evidence of the Earth’s age!  Show me a lake monster body, or a living one, or a bone … this footage isn’t evidence, since it could be caused by 100 different things.  One thing can be more plausible than the other, but the evidence for either is the same.   See what I mean?

        1. I’m not sure, but I think Mister44’s point was that the beastie is the more plausible one, without the mountains of evidence against it. YEC is pretty damned absurd, and there is so much evidence against it that continuing to believe is a clear mental defect.

      1.  Hahahah — I’ve got some pretty rad video evidence of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear!  It’s indisputable!

    2. One is thought of as pretty silly and frivolous, and doesn’t really have much of an affect on the real world (though I would argue that people who believe in such monsters might be more likely to believe in other insane things, which might have more of an affect).

      Creationism, however, is quite at odds with how the world actually works, and many people want to bring it into the classroom, at the expense of actual science.

        1. Having never read the Unabomber’s Manifesto (and being at work, unable to read the whole thing) I’m going to ask; he specifically names the Loch Ness Monster as the reason he did what he did?!?!?

    3. Because there are no broader educational consequences to chuckling about Nessie. Nobody is going to claim that only Nessie can be taught in schools.

      1.  You must misunderstand my point — my point is that BECAUSE this is BB, a generally pro-science site, presenting crap like this as MAYBE evidence of something (when it’s obviously not) struck me as out-of-character.  Creationism was just one (of a million) examples of evidence-free things people believe in for no good reason.

        1. Playfully presenting the possibility of an unlikely species, in the light of things like coelacanths and Laotian rock rats, is a way of tweaking the noses of both stuffy scientific certainty and militantly-gullible creationism –

          Because science at least admits that it can be wrong, while creationism and other religion-based cosmologies don’t. Same punchline, different audience reactions.

    4. Maybe because there aren’t millions of poor deluded bastards threatening our freedoms, and in some cases our very lives, because we don’t accept their “lake monster” on faith…?  I tend to resist believing in anything I’m told at gun-point.

  3. It’s not actually moving forward in the water, just writhing in place. It looks like it is swimming , but the cuts in video hide that the ‘monster’ isnt going anywhere. Like the article linked above says, its just a stuck fishing net crusted with ice.

  4.  I think we’re all missing the most important part here.  Apparently there’s a magic ring that will make things grow larger if you put it over them.  There are a lot of men out there who would pay dearly for this! 

  5. Okay, now I’ve got it.  The whole, “my precious” thing wasn’t about the ring at all.
    Sméagol just figured that with the correct placement, he could be the hobbit, “Love Machine”.

Comments are closed.