do you guys know if they didnt throw that caddy carcass from 1937 away, they wouldve proved caddy existed. their goes history

Depending of course on whether or not it was really the carcass of a sea monster, which is always the case when we find un-recognizable carcasses. For example... the "tusked whale" carcass... it's just a whale carcass in which the tissue holding the two halves of the bottom jaw together deteriorated, which splayed the lower jaw out into what LOOKED like tusks.
Since i don't pretend to know much about the Caddy carcass, I can't really offer an opinion in it's case, but I do agree that in the cases wherein mysterious remains wash up on shore, that more time and energy should be devoted to identifying them lest we lose a valuable specimen.

i think the caddy carcass was definetely a zeuglodon.

I believe the one in question was found inside a sperm whale stomach. A photograph of it was shown on the Natl. Geographic sea monster special. Apparently it smelled very badly and the whaling station personnel didn't realize how important it may have been.

is there an image of it in the gallery here?

These are the ones you are after
[attachmentid=22863][attachmentid=22864][attachmentid=22865]

There was also these found and suspected the same creature, was in the same waters, story escapes me at the moment, will post a link when found.

[attachmentid=22866][attachmentid=22867]

All I see in those pictures are shapeless blobs. What's so spectacular about that?

Being 1937, it was probably the best camera a whaling station hand on hand, probably luck one was had at all.
It could be just about anything in that state couldn't it. Still ,it is the witness testimonies that go with the pics that makes the pics interesting. Group testimonies are bound to gain credibility over single witness ones.
You would think though, if they thought it was so unusual, why not keep a bone, especially the skull? Bones don't stink that bad

Not to worry! Today, I used my digital camera to photograph the Cadborosaurus' nearest relative - the elusive Cardboardasaurus. The two are often confused with one another, especially in Boston. Anyway, my photo should be proof enough of this creature's existence. Here it is:

Hrrmzzz, looks like the creature is moving, do you have an accompanying video?

Funny you should ask as I went through quite an ordeal to get this stunning picture and present it to all of you at the UM...

In addition to the above photograph, I also managed to capture almost four full minutes of video footage of this prehistoric relic before he slipped back into the dense forest. However, due to the fact that I was rocking out on my ipod while I packed up my equipment, I failed to notice the black helicopters that began circling me. Soon I was surrounded by government agents who confiscated every shred of evidence I had gathered supporting the existence of Cardboardasaurus. Let me tell you, the interrogation wasn't pretty either.

Fortunately, before I was ambushed, I used my laptop to email my husband a copy of the above photo along with instructions to make a hard copy and place it securely in our safe-deposit box.

It was probably all in vain though. No doubt the Feds will be here in the forums any minute to start casting doubt on my photo.

*scoff*

that photo is OBVIOUSLY photoshopped

See! Get out of here government scum!

Those old pictures look like a giant piece of seaweed.

--Jon

You must be kidding! Seaweed doesn't have a head or tail. Are you appear of the fact that there is still a living eyewitness to the 1937 Naden Harbor carcass and he testified that the the carass was an animal none of the experienced sea farers could identify?

Um..."are you appear of the fact" that that guy could have been lying? I could say I just saw a UFO come out of my boss's head and the aliens offered me SweetTarts to go back to their planet and show them fire...doesn't mean it happened. Oral "proof" is useless.

--Jon

Lying about what? Lying about being there? Or lying about what he and the other eyewitnesses saw, handled and photographed? Do you think it is possible that he could be telling the truth? If you do then until you can prove he is lying don't automatically assume he is lying.




Do you have photographic evidence or other eyewitnesses who corroborate your claim like he does? In the case of the Naden Harbor specimen there were multiple eyewitnesses and photos. Don't try to paint the picture that it is just one person's anecdotal testimony.

Bickering with skeptics will NEVER produce results... *rolls eyes*
Still, if an un-identifiable carcass is found there needs to be some sort of procedure governing the preservation of at least some sort of tissue sample for future identification.
For example, I don't remember the same of the ship, but years and years ago, a ship succeeded in capturing a giant squid, albeit by accident. To corroberate their story, a large section of flesh from the creature (which broke away from its body as it escaped) was brought back to port to prove their story.
Science is losing the chance to solve many mysteries of the sea due to the fact that in these cases where partially decayed and unidentifiable specimens are discovered, the parties involved tend to simply dispose of the findings.

We seem to remember that in the case of the Naden Harbor specimen a portion of the animal was saved and given to a museum for study but was lost by them. It is probably still sitting in a box in a dingy basement of a museum along with other "lost" artifacts.

Whale carcass...

It seems to us if it was only a whale carcass that it would have been easy for the whalers who caught the whale which had the specimen in its stomach to be able to identify the specimen as a whale carcass. Have you looked closely at the tail of the specimen? What whale do you know of has a tail that looks like that?

Rotting for days in the ocean, sitting in the acidity of a whale stomach...bones exposed....A carcass can look like anything!

A whale does not retain it's form when it's dead.
All living creatures rot and decompose. Otherwise there'd be billions of carcasses floating around.

When a whale dies it's body stays buoyant in the water, floating not at the surface but quite far under it, until fish eating it's remains as well as natural decomposition degrade the body so much that the bones and any heavy parts of the carcass rip away from the flesh and fall to the bottom of the ocean. The remaining, completely unrecognisable lump of flesh and bone fragments floats to the surface until it is either completely eaten or washes up on a beach. Or, of course, is hauled in by a trawler.

The end result naturally looks like a massive shapeless blob of rotting flesh that cannot be identified, and is often mistaken for some unknown sea creature of the deep. 'Globster' is of course the best example of a massive lump of rotting flesh being mistaken for some primitive creature of the past.
I can't believe i'm afraid that any of these creatures are more than rotting carcasses of known animals.


I mean really, look at it logically, why is it then that we see to be pulling up carcasses of unknown mythical beasts, yet never carcasses of known, normal species such as whales?

Much better explanation Burn...

I agree with your explaination as well. But in the case that the specimen may TRULLY be something fantastic, at least small samples should be taken for comparison to known creatures.

If you read anything about the carcass you would know that "the original specimen was entire, undigested and in generally good condition. The neck region, however, appears to have been severely crushed, perhaps by the killing action of the whale's jaws on its prey prior to being swallowed whole. The whale itself had been harpooned and killed by one of the station 'colour boats', on the fishing grounds off Langara I., in mid-July, 1937. It was then towed, via Parry Passage, to the Naden Harbour station and flensed soon afterwards. During this short pre-flensing period, estimated at 10-12 hours slight digestion and shrinkage of surface features of the specimen in the whale's anterior stomach may have taken place. However, the serpent's body was essentially intact and easily identifiable as unlike any marine animal previously known to the station whaling men (Wakelen, personal communication). It was also totally unlike other large deep-water prey animals such as six gilled sharks (Hexanchus griseus), ragfish (Icosteus aenigmaticus) and giant squid (Architeuthis sp.) regularly encountered by the flensers when searching sperm whale stomachs for ambergris (fide J. Wakelen; see also Cowan, 1938; Hagelund, 1987, p. 177)." This quote is from an article written in Amphipacifica Volume 1 Supplement 1 April 20, 1995 by Dr. E. L. Bousfield and Dr. P. H. LeBlond. Apparently the carcass was in pretty good condition and was not digested and didn't look like a six gilled shark, ragfish or any other marine animals the whalers were familiar with. According to the same article, "the juvenile specimen, and the photography, were witnessed by the whaling station blacksmith, Mr. James Wakelen, now residing in Victoria, B. C. Parts of this specimen (portion of a backbone, piece of 'baleen' and portion of skin) were reportedly forwarded to the Pacific Biological Station at Nanaimo and/or to the Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, soon afterwards." The article further states that "This original and potential holotype material was apparently not deposited (nor an accession record of it made) in the collections of RBC Museum (fide curator David Nagorsen) and is considered lost to science."

Since obviously sea serpents are much rarer than whales that's also a very good explanation why an intact carcass of an adult sea serpent has never been found washed up or floating in the water.

It is amazing how naive so many of these sceptics are in believing there could not be any more large, undiscovered lifeforms could be in the sea. In their own lifetimes extradordinary new marine animals have been discovered, and quite large ones like the megamouth shark. "Sea serpents", whatever they actually are have been seen for thousands of years by reliable witnesses, sometimes whole towns along a coast seeing the same creature, not to mention complete crews of ships.

Think how rare it is for a human to see a giant squid, yet they are so common that Sperm whales consume them in such quantities J. Cousteau stated the weight of them eaten each year is equivalent to the biomass of the entire human race!

So think how hard it might be to see equally, or even more elusive sea creatures, even large ones if they happen to be uncommon and also wary of mankind. The characterestics of Sea Serpents suggest they are possibly a primitive type of whale like a zeuglodon/basilosaurus. Marine mammals are one of the most intellient species of animals on earth next to man. Now imagine if one of these species had literally millions more years to evolve" intellectually than any other marine mammals or even mankind. Their form and environment would prevent them from making rockets and flying to the moon, but they certainly could be intelligent enough to avoid humans. And perhaps they are also the "lake monsters", unafraid of, and even predators of man in earlier times (as some legends attest), but intelligent enough to avoid men now.

Got to agree with that

Actually the believers are naive by definition. Us skeptics don't deny that large unidentified sea creatures surely exist. Difference is we don't believe that every rotting hunk of flesh that washes up on the coast or is pulled out of a whales stomach is a friggin sea serpent. We await proof. We base our conclusions on sound science and scientific method and it is only through this method that any as of yet unidentified life forms will be discovered. For that you should love us. Following the burden of proof we find that no verified sea serpents have ever washed up on any countries shore in modern times. Not being part poopers, just facing FACTS.

Didn't you understand what we just posted? The Naden Harbour specimen wasn't a rotting hunk of flesh pulled out of a whales stomach and the photos prove that fact. You just refuse to accept that fact and continue to pretend that it was an unidentifiable hunk of rotting flesh. At least present the facts accurately. Maybe no dead sea serpents have been found washed up on any shore in modern times but the burden of proof was overcome for us that sea serpents exist when a live one washed up on shore only 20 yards away from us on February 5, 1985 and we saw the entire animal except the tail above the surface of the water. We don't have to prove it to you to have it proven to us as a result of a personal definitive sighting. The burden of proof was overcome for Clifford Paiva when we allowed him to analyse the video we took on January 26, 2004 and he has produced the supporting documentation for his conclusion that sea serpents exist. We just received an email from him today and he said that he has given the ooparts website permission to post his entire analysis so that people can read it for free.

I understood it, thanks. I just don't believe it. Conflicting information from unreliable sources in 1937 doesn't cut it. Whatever is in that picture it is evidently in a state of decay. That's just a simple case of looking at it. Either way it's a moot point: we don't have it to study. As for your sea serpents? Catch one and I'll believe you. I'd love for it to happen but don't be offended if I don't hold my breath.

PS
If your video is so compelling putting an analysis of it on ooparts is not going to help your credibility.

they look like blobs to me too........

What conflicting information? You guys had the wrong information about the Naden Harbour Carcass. We went right to the living eyewitness testimony and got the right information about the condition the carcass was in when it was removed from the stomach of the whale.




Obviously, an animal will be in a state of decay as soon as it dies but we were discussing the FACT that the carcass was "undigested" and intact when it was taken out of the stomach of the whale. There is a big difference between being in a state of decay and being digested.



We understand. You are capable of determining the condition of the carcass simply by examining photos of it while the eyewitness who examined the actual specimen was incapable of determining its condition. That makes a lot of sense!



We'll be glad to go out and try to catch one if you will volunteer to be the bait.



it shouldn't matter to any cynic or skeptic who has complained that they have to pay a couple of dollars to BSM Associates in order to get the Paiva/Slusher analysis. All they should care about is that they can read it on a web site for free. Or are you just moving the goalposts?

Not so sure pf yourself are you Just sounds like a bunch of people trying to get attention.

Do you have any proof those are no hunks of flesh.

Have you bothered to read Bruce Champagne's analysis or the portion of the Paiva/Slusher report that is posted on the ooparts web site?

I have to agree with sfseaserpent here! the eyewitnesses are quite a better source to form your opinion around - if they were interviewed right after the discovery! if they were to be interviewed about 10-20 years later i wouldn't give too much about it...

Living eyewitness testimony from almost 70 years ago? Yeah, that's very reliable.

Point is, we don't have the carcass, testimony is notoriously unreliable (even moreso in the realm of cryptozoology due to the predominance of hoaxes and unscientific analyses), and no other carcass has ever surfaced.

Lastly, I don't know who was complaining about paying for access to video. It wasn't I. On the matter though, I certainly wouldn't pay for any analyses by Clifford Paiva anyhow. He's a YEC supporter whose work only shows up on sites like ooparts and s8int. He WANTS to find Noah's ark to prove God's existence, he WANTS to find any animal that will help aid his cause of creationism pseudoscience and his wants taint his analyses.

The point is in the case of the Naden Harbour carcass we have a couple of photos and testimony from a living eyewitness. Get real. When someone has a extraordinary or tramatic experience they remember every detail of it for the rest of their life. People still remember exactly what they were doing when President Kennedy was murdered over 40 years ago and we still remember in detail what we saw on Febrary 5, 1985. If you think Clifford Paiva's analysis is tainted because he will say anything to "help aid his cause of creationism pseudoscience" then it should be easy for you to prove it by obtaining a copy of his analysis and pointing out the errors. Don't forget, we have a second analysis by Bruce Champagne who agreed with Paiva that our video contains images of several large unknown serpentine marine animals. Since Bruce has never been accused of being a "creationist" how do you explain his opinion?

You've got be joking. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously faulty. This is a well established fact. Especially in traumatic situations. Here's a quick link and a little searching will find that there's been many studies that display this conclusively:

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/mistakenid.html

Just check it for yourself.

And Champagne? He writes books about sea serpents. Hardly unbiased.

I'm not trying to bust your balls here. I haven't seen anything but stills from your video and I would never doubt that you saw something. The problem of the analysis lie in the fact that they are from cryptozoological circles whose credibility is notoriously strained. Without independent analysis by uninvolved persons (you can't really believe that Champagne wouldn't love to report that there are sea serpents in SF Harbor) the veracity of such analysis will always be called into question. Additionally, the distance of the objects in the video images I've seen is always going to invite speculation anyway. The study of video to verify if something is an animal is far from an exacting science as it has no real precedent. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I may be, but I thought I remembered in a post of yours that one analyst said it was a flock of birds? Again, I could be mixing something up here so let me know. I'm not trying to discredit you or anything, far from it.

You see the dilemma, though. Without a body or incredibly compelling close up video it is extremely hard to believe that there are gigantic sea serpents frolicking in SF Harbor that you have filmed on two (at least, correct?) occasions yet haven't been seen in any other video or photographic evidence nor has a verifiable carcass ever been recovered. All the best in your search though.

Returning to my favorite theme--apparently--at this Site:

We'll probably never be able to verify this photography or these stories, from the 1800s, 1930s, etc.

Whatever this was, (even if it was an unknown or thought-extinct-but-actually-extant species in the 1930s), it's probably extinct now, what with global warming and pollution.

Onward to the future...

Seaweed doesn't have a head or tail.

Neither does this. Regardless of how one wants to define: "state of decomosition" the specemin is rotten ENOUGH to impede identification. Do the photos show the rotting and partially digested corpse of a sea-serpent? Possibly, but due to poor quality of period equipment, and the general "condition" of the corpse, it cannot be positivly identified as anything other than a WAD OF ROTTING FLESH.
Witness testimony or no, it's entirely possible that a mostly-decayed specemin such as this to be mis-identified, or non-identifiable, regardless of whether or not it's trully somethign fantastic.

There are many rotted 'monster' carcasses proved to be whales...what makes this so different...IT's NOT!

If that was always the case then how come we can remember exactly what we were doing when Kennedy was murdered and what we saw on February 5, 1985?



What do you think would happen if someone tried this experiment? Take 100 people who have never seen an elephant and put them in an open field. Then let a full grown elephant run past them only 20 yards away. How many of them do you think would describe what they saw as an huge gray animal that they have never seen before? The more eyewitnesses who describe seeing the same thing the more likely they are not misidentifying what they saw.





We have invited any cynic and skeptic to provide us with the unbiased expert of their chioce and we would be willing to send them a copy of our video and the two analyses for them to analyse. To this date not one cynic or skeptic has provided us with their expert. If you or anyone else think the two analyses are invalid because of the expert's beliefs then before you claim as a fact that their analyses are invalid and inaccurate wouldn't it be prudent of you to actually analyse their analyses and point out where their analyses are incorrect? You are expressing extreme bias by asserting that the analyses of Paiva and Champagne are of no value and are automatically invalid because of one's belief in the existence of God and the other's belief in the possibility that sea serpents might exist without first examining their analyses and the process they used to come to their conclusions. BTW, What's your definition of unbiased?




Then you tell us what known animal looks like a 75+ foot long telephone pole?


We disagree. It is easy for an expert to tell by the movements and behavior of an object whether it is animate or inanimate. Read the Paiva/Slusher analysis.




That was Grant Fredericks who is a forensic consultant to the FBI who was paid by NG to debunk all the videos they showed in their program. None of the experts we used were paid anything for their opinions. Fredericks is still refusing to provide us with his supporting documentation so that it can be examined by other experts and he continues to refuse to answer any of our questions. Maybe we have to pay him before he will communicate with us.




Even if there is only one photo or video that is proven to be unaltered or fabricated in any manner that shows images that appear to be of an animal previously unknown to science it should be taken seriously and scrutinized before dismissing it entirely. BTW, We are aware of a woman from Marin who was walking across the Golden Gate Bridge this past summer who took 3 photos of 3 large black animals swimming parallel to each other which she claimed didn't look like whales and were too large to be sea lions or dolphins. We are trying to contact her so that we can examine her photos. Another individual, Dennis Dooley took a photo of an long black animal swimming near the Oakland Bay Bridge at sunrise in 2001.

Maybe you should look closer at the left end of the animal. A white "card" was put behind the right half of the tail so that you could see the outline better. You should get a copy of Amphipacifica Volume one Supplement one. There is an enlargement of the "tail" shown in it.



Not according to the eyewitnesses. As we stated previously the carcass "was entire, undigested, and in generally good condition" and because of that they were able to identify it as an animal none of them had ever seen before.




Since the FACT is that it wasn't a "mostly-decayed specimen" it is entirely possible the whalers didn't mis-identify it and corresctly identified it as an animal none of them had even seen before.

Here is a serious observation and idea for the sea serpent believers. Many sea serpent sightings were made on the new England seaboard at the time when whaling had practically exterminated the sperm whales there, and although there are occasional less dramatic and more sketchy sightings now, it is interesting that the best example had been eaten by a Sperm Whale. While a Sea Serpent may seem formidible to a Human, as does a Giant squid, both are merely "food" to a massive sperm whale. Now that there are more restrictions on hunting sperm whales they are more common again and are eating far more sea serpents/cadborosauruses these days, hence their relative rarity in sightings nowadays. If all the sperm whales were gone, the sea serpents may make a comeback again, but obviously we are not going to do that unless Japan conquers the world. An alternative would be for someone with a lot of resources to get a grant to mount cameras on the heads of Sperm Whales. Not only would we get great videos of them fighting and devouring giant squid and large sharks, but we might even catch some footage of one scarfing down a Cadborosaurus. Of course, for best results we would want to use spermwhales in the areas where "Caddies" have been occasionally seen.

First off, remembering where you were when something happened has absolutely nothing to do with visual recollection. You remember what you saw in '85 because you seen it a million times. I'm not going to argue the point, there are well over a hundred documented studies (and untold number of published papers) that verify that eyewitness visual recollection is highly inaccurate. Repeated misidentification is a common theme. The brain quickly correlates an unknown image into something that is better known, for instance mistaking floating objects for a living thing.

As for what do I call biased? I call Paiva biased and highly discredited. He presents any analysis that will support his YEC theories that have absolutely no basis in science. He doesn't have a natural sciences background, so no, I'm not going to accept his analysis of a 170 foot animal in SF bay. It's ridiculous. I own a small indie film company and I shoot narrative film with a panny dvx100a, progressive frame with an anamorphic adaptor (pushes to a little over 500 lines uncompressed). In that capacity I obviously never have to analyze my frames but I do know quite a lot about digital video. Without knowing what camera you shot with I'm going to assume it was a consumer cam (480 x 600, 60i) with 3 1/4" CCDs. Shooting at the distance you did there simply isn't enough resolving power to assume a lot of that movement wasn't highly exaggerate by interlace artifacts and compression. The CCD of the camera is going to assign a color to a single pixel by which color is most dominant in that spot. As you're only looking at something 6-8 pixels tall at its largest you're going to get vast flux of pixel assignment exacerbated by interlace flicker giving something the look of far more motion than is actually there. Depending on the the lighting and quality of cam the signal/noise ratio is going to worsen the resolution. As for him assigning 1 pixel per foot, I have no idea how he could arrive at that conclusion. Assuming a 1:1 zoom that would mean it was exactly 600 feet from one edge of the frame to the other at the focal plane where the item in question is. That's a nearly impossible calculation to due without a reference point of determined distance, the focal length of the lens, the angle the lens is pointing in relation to that reference point and a whole lot of planar and scalar geometry (or a 3d plotting program) none of which I see evidence of in his analysis as it is on ooparts. Even then at such an acute angle the lines of demarcation of distance would be so close as to interfere with an accurate distance measurement. Boat lengths don't count as reference without knowing their exact distance in reference to all of the above. That, mingled with the fact that Paiva's a YEC hack precludes me from giving his analysis any weight.

I haven't seen Champagne's analysis so I can't comment on his methods but I will still say that I find him siding with the sea monster conclusion as unsurprising. Am I going to take a paid professionals opinion before their's? Yes. It would better serve you to go to a professional in animal motor function and pay for their analysis if you truly believe what you shot was an unidentified sea creature. Unfortunately cryptozoologists are lacking in credibility and you're never going to find any serious scientist giving credence to your claims unless you get outside of that realm. In the end though, unfortunately I don't believe there's enough raw info (pixels) in the footage to make any positive ID one way or the other and when that's not possible one must side with the mundane rather than the fantastic. I'd suggest investing in a decent digital still camera (one that reads actual focal length not a sliding w/t scale) and match the focal length to any footage your shooting. Even a 480x600 digital still (3 megapix+) will give you the ability to capture stills that can be blown up and examined to a much higher scale than a digital camcorder still frame. At the same focal length they would give good still reference to matchup with the motion of future video. If you can also think of investing in a dvx100 or 100a. You can probably get them used for less than three grand. They shoot true progressive frames (not interlaced) like a film camera and have much better frame to frame quality (I believe Canon xl2 is equivalent). There's an HD version of the Panny as well but its pricy.

Anyhow, there's my unprofessional analysis. You might consider posting the uncompressed video somewhere so folks like myself (with good equipment) can give you their thoughts.

Well, folks, I'm sorry this thread is getting a bit hijacked. SFSS if you want to talk more about you can start another thread or PM me.

Back to the Caddy pic. Too inconclusive.

We think the appropriate place for us to repond to this post is on the Japanese dragons in SF Bay thread so we will post our response there.

Give it a rest will you? how do you think we write our history? yeees, by eyewitnesses who saw the events (and not even always!). I'd say that their eyewitnesses are more real and reliable than Jesus... Not to trash any religion, but alot of people can relate to that. Without eyewitnesses we wouldn't be able to catch murderers or write down our own history...! C'mon!

Simply not the case. This is from the link I posted that you must have missed a few posts back:

Although jurors rely heavily on eyewitness identification, there is overwhelming evidence that eyewitness identification is highly fallible and that eyewitness confidence is a poor guide to accuracy. Here are just a few examples:


A recent study (Wells, et al, 1998) examined the first 40 cases where DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. In 90% of the cases, mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role. In one case, 5 separate witnesses identified the defendant.

Huff (1987) studied 500 wrongful convictions and concluded that mistaken eyewitness identification occurred in 60%. This is an amazingly high number since eyewitness identification is an important factor in only 5% of all trials (Loh, 1981).

Cutler and Penrod (1995) examined eyewitness identification accuracy from controlled studies performed in "natural setting." In the typical study, a person enters a convenience store and performs some memorable action (such as paying in pennies) to ensure drawing the clerk's attention. Later the clerk views a photospread and identifies the "customer." The percentage of correct identification ranged from 34-48% and the percentage of false identification is 34-38%. It is hard to know how far to generalize such studies, but they suggest that eyewitnesses are almost as likely to wrong as to be correct when identifying strangers. Moreover, these results occurred until highly favorable circumstances: extended duration, good lighting, clear visibility, and no "weapons focus."

We're catching a lot of the wrong murderers.