Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

[sfseaserpent]

We (Bill and Bob Clark) have had several sightings of sea serpents in San Francisco Bay since 1985. On February 5, 1985 we saw a sea serpent beach itself only 20 yards from where we were parked in our car and we saw the entire animal expect the tail. On January 26, 2004 we took a 3 1/2 minute video which we claim contains images of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay. We had 2 independent analyses of the video done. One was done by BSM Associates (expert image analyst Clifford Paiva and physicist Dr. Harold Slusher) and the second was done by marine biologist Bruce Champagne. Both analyses concluded that our video contains images of several large unknown serpentine marine animals swimming in SF Bay. We invite all skeptics to provide us with the expert of their choice who is willing to do an in-depth analysis of our video and we will send them a free copy. We only request that they agree not to post any portion of the video on the internet or anywhere else without our permission and if the conclusion of their analysis disagrees with the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis that they provide us with their supporting documentation. We can be reached at our email address sfseaserpent9@hotmail.com.

[flyer1]

Anything swimming in SF Bay wouldn't live long enough to be filmed. It would probably dissolve before you got your camera ready.

[statisticool]

Image experts... they had some of those look at some fairy pics a while back and pronounce them genuine.

[sfseaserpent]

jzs said "Image experts... they had some of those look at some fairy pics a while back and pronounce them genuine."

We are not here to be ridiculed by skeptics. We are making a serious claim. We have the video. We also have two independent analyses which support our claim that our video contains images of several large unknown serpentine marine animals swimming in SF Bay. Both analyses have supporting documentation. If you are claiming our "Image experts..." are wrong then all you have to do is provide us with an "expert" OF YOUR CHOICE who is willing to do an in-depth analysis and we will send them a free copy.

[statisticool]

We are making a serious claim.

Which is what exactly? That you claim to have some thing you cannot identify on a video?

We have the video.

Do you choose to make it publically available to all?

If you are claiming our "Image experts..." are wrong then all you have to do is provide us with an "expert" OF YOUR CHOICE who is willing to do an in-depth analysis and we will send them a free copy.

You're the ones making a claim. All I'm saying is that image analysis, as the past shows, isn't really convincing.

[statisticool]

Google search on names of analysts you provided revealed:

Clifford Paiva: stuff with Mt. Ararat ark searches.

Harold Slusher: stuff comes up on accumulation of dust arguments. The name comes up on this page: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html.

Bruce Champagne: no info comes up.

At your page (it is yours, right?): http://home.access4less.net/~sfseaserpent/id7.html? How can one say anything from looking at these stills wtih all that compression? If this is the best you can offer us non-experts, I'm afraid it is not very good.

One that page, the pic with the caption "another frame showing the 1st animal swimming" has a date of Wed 2:42pm. But the one below it, with the caption "seconds later the animal makes a looping turn" has a date of Wed 2:23pm. Doesn't it occur to you if the second picture occured later in terms of action, that the time of taking the screenshot should be later, unless you took them in some bizarre time order for some reason.

Some pics here, of whales near San Francisco. Some of the pics, such as this one http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales2.JPG, look thin and serpent like (obviously because whales necessarily have to be mostly under the water, and the viewer is almost always seeing them in profile- because why would whales be swimming towards the shore to beach themselves?). This one too: http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales6.JPG, ooh and this one REALLY looks like a serpent: http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales8.JPG .

So, how is your story more convincing?

[Don_Fernandez]

Look, I wouldn't trust myself on quantum chemistry because is not my area of expertise.
Why should I believe that your "experts" are trustworthy?
Physicists are not marine biologists, if they think they saw a serpent in your video their opinion is not that of an expert.

Bruce Champagne gets mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on Sea Serpents.
A link to an article from there reveals that he got his degree in "marine biology" from The Union Institute (http://www.tui.edu), a distance learning institution.
Sorry, before I chose chemistry I did study some biology, including field experience in collecting marine invertebrates and lab work, you can't learn much stuff about life from books only. I can't hold highly the expertise of someone getting a degree in marine biology from a mail/internet based program. Especially not if that university does not offer marine biology degrees, but allows the student to design their own degree.
If you think that makes him an expert please find the ranking of the Union Institute among Marine Biology universities.

A search in Scholar.google.com for author B* Champagne restricted to the field of biology fails to reveal any scientific articles by Bruce Champagne. It actually reveals that B. Champagnes are scarce in the biological sciences, and none of them is the self-styled marine biologist Bruce.
Ergo: he is not a recognized scientist in the field, and might not even have a formal training.

In logic you committed the "appeal to authority" fallacy, by appealing to people that are not authorities in the field, your "experts" are talking of things beyond their expertise.

Clifford A. Paiva does appear in some scientific articles, unrelated to image analysis as far as I could find. I'll assume he's an expert in image analysis, then he can tell you if the image has not been tampered, he can tell you that the image shows certain shapes, but not being a biologist I don't think he can pronounce with certainty that the video shows sea serpents.

Thus I want you to provide better experts, and I see no need to do your homework for you.

And anyway, your video has aired on National Geographic where they had experts who said it only showed birds.
(I haven't found a direct reference to that, but was amused by a discussion of sfseaserpent video on a different forum
Now I understand why you are so sensitive about being ridiculed, you have found a lot of that already...

If you want to challenge those that disagree with your interpretation, you should also rise to the challenges that they present you.

Prove that your "experts" are authorities in the field.

[statisticool]

"Creation science models, certainly those incorporating Pre-Deluvian fauna and flora existing in a Post-Deluvian environment, will probably utilize the Clark Discovery."

Of course.

[sfseaserpent]

Here is Clifford Paiva's resume.

CLIFFORD A. PAIVA

Naval Surface Warfare Center
Dahlgren Division
Joint Warfare Applications Department
Electro-Optical and Infrared Countermeasures Branch
Dahlgren Laboratory

OBJECTIVE: Physicist:
Automatic Target Detection and Recognition (ATR); Electromagnetic Wave Propagation Algorithm Generation; Electro-Optics Engineering

Missile Defense Agency: Propagation Physicist: Electro-Optics, Infrared Countermeasures; Rocket Propulsion and Advanced Image Processing ; Multi-target and Multi-sensor Tracking and Sensor Fusion/Dempster-Schafer


NAVAL SCIENCE EXPERIENCE

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Laboratory, Dahlgren, VA (1991-2000)

Electro-Optics and Infrared Countermeasures Technologies Division
Primary Responsibilities:

image processing of missile plumes, and nuclear circular error probable predictive capabilities using UV/Optical/IR/MMW SSGM
NORSE/SS-18; SS-27; Dong Feng 31,41 Correlation Analysis
cross-covariance state analysis for multi-sensor fusion algorithm generation
ballistic missile defense target detection, classification and identification (DCI) algorithm generation
implement Advanced Visual Systems (AVS), KHOROS and SCION advanced image processing packages for DCI operations
implement MicroDEM/TERRA Base II Digitized Elevation/Radiation Map Model (US Naval Academy) for DCI operations
Scientific and Technical Intelligence Liaison Office (STILO): Analysis of Foreign Directed Energy Programs
Fusion of multiple sensor data association techniques; including Dempster-Shafer Evidential Reasoning

NAVAL SCIENCE EXPERIENCE

Naval Warfare Assessment Center (formerly Naval Fleet Analysis Center), Naval Weapons Systems, Seal Beach, Corona, CA (1979-1983)

Test Technology Branch
Primary Responsibilities:

High Energy Laser (HEL) electro-optics and pointer-tracker configuration management functioning under Naval Directed Energy Office (PMS 405)
Surface-to-surface and surface-to-air weapons AIM-7 Sea Sparrow Weapons Performance Analysis
Scientific and Technical Intelligence Liaison Office (STILO): Analysis of Foreign Directed Energy Programs


AIR FORCE SCIENCE EXPERIENCE

Air Force Research Laboratory, Rocket Propulsion Directorate, Edwards AFB, CA (1986-1991)

Thermophysics Branch
Primary Responsibilities:

Project Manager: Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Composite High Altitude Radiation Model (CHARM) Program in Conjunction with Airborne Laser Propagation Analysis
Project Manager: SDI Kinetic Weapons (KEW) Plume-to-Hardbody Handover Algorithm Evaluations Program
Project Manager: High Altitude Observatory (HALO), Aerospace Corporation, Optical and Infrared Target Discrimination Program
Scientific and Technical Intelligence Liaison Office (STILO): Analysis of Foreign Directed Energy Programs

COMPUTER EXPERIENCE

Microsoft Visual C++
Microsoft Office 2000 Professional
UNIX and Windows Based Operating Systems

INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE

SPARTA-Spiral Technology, Lancaster, CA (2002-Present)

Senior Scientist: Infrared and Electro-Optics Propagation Systems

BSM Associates

A research firm founded by Cliff and Jerrine Paiva and Professor, Dr. Harold S. Slusher, which addresses ballistic missile defense issues and includes electromagnetic propagation studies; rocket plume analysis; high-energy laser / transmission line-of-sight atmospheric interactions and potential countermeasures; global fracture system and the generation of earthquakes

INSTRUCTOR

Advanced Mathematics at The King?s Academy, Fredericksburg, Virginia


EDUCATION

Defense Intelligence School, Washington D.C Imagery Intelligence  Physics for Strategic Intelligence Operations
Columbia Pacific University, San Rafael, CA Ph.D. Candidate Space Physics
Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA Degree: M.S. Astrogeophysics
Christian Heritage College, El Cajon, CA Degree: B.S. Geophysics
Southwestern College, Chula Vista, CA Two Years: Physics and Biology
San Diego State University, San Diego, CA One Year: Mathematics
Missouri State University, Warrensburg, Mo Two Courses: Egyptology, PsychologyI, II
Air Force Command and Staff College Three Courses: Strategy and Policy
Naval War College Four Courses: Strategy and Policy
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) Nine Courses: Advanced EO/IR/MMW
International Society of Optical Engineers Eleven Courses:AutomaticTarget Detection
University of Tennessee Space Institute  Two Courses: Solid Rocket Motors
US Defense Management College Two Courses: Contract Performance And Budget Analysis
United States Armed Forces Institute Two Courses: General Undergraduate in English
Antelope Valley College Current Master Chorale and Concertino

TECHNICAL PUBLISHED AND PRESENTED PAPERS

High Energy Laser Interactions With Solid Rocket Exhausts: Case Study: PRC/DF-15 (U).A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; AIAA Missile Sciences Conference; Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, CA; Defense Technical Information (DTIC) Publication; (16-18 November 2004)

High Energy Laser (HEL) Interactions With Liquid Propellant, Rocket Exhaust Particles: Case Application: DF-15 (U): C.A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; 35th AIAA Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference, Portland Oregon; Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Publication; (28 June-1 July 2004)

High Energy Laser Plasma Refraction and Extinction Processes Within Missile Exhaust Plumes: An Analysis of the Taepo-Dong II HEL/Exhaust Plume Interactions (U): C.A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; SPIE's Lasers and Applications in Science and Engineering (LASE) Photonics West); Gas and Chemical Lasers and Applications IV Proceedings; (24-29 January 2004)

High-Energy Laser Beam Transmissions Through Aluminum Oxide and Carbon Soot: A Case for Dispersion (U): C.A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department, 33rd AIAA Missile Science 5-7 November 2002; AIAA-Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Publication; Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, C.A.; (5-7 November 2002)

High-Energy Laser Beam Transmissions Through Dissociated and Ionized Atmospheres and Missile Exhaust Plumes (U): C.A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; International Society for Optical Engineers http://www.spie.org/; International Symposium on Optical Science and Technology Proceedings, 7-11 July 2002

High-Energy Laser Beam Transmissions Through Turbulent Atmospheres Missile Exhaust Plume Species (U): C.A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department, 33r AIAA Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conference and the 14th International Conference on MHD Power Generation and High Temperature Technologies Proceedings; American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics; 25 May 2002

High-Energy Laser Interactions With Missile Plumes Containing Oxides of Zirconium and Magnesium in Rocket Exhausts (U): C. A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; Conference on Laser Electro-Optics Proceedings 21 May 2002; Optical Society of America; (21 May 2002)

High-Energy Laser Transmissions Through Missile Exhaust Plumes: The Implications for High Angle-of-Attack (AOA) Scenarios (U): C. A. Paiva, BSM Associates; H.S. Slusher, University of Texas at El Paso, Physics Department; Laser Weapons Technology III Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering, Volume 4724-14; (1 April 2002)

Theater Ballistic Missile Defense/Debris Signature Suppression and Hardbody Aimpoint Selection (U): C.A. Paiva; Applications and Science of Computational Intelligence; Aerospace/Defense Sensing and Controls, Proceedings of the International Society of Optical Engineering (SPIE); AeroSense Conference Proceedings SPIE Volume 3390-6; (16 April 98 )

Navy Theater Ballistic Missile Defense: Post Boost Multi-spectral Discrimination Requirements for Detection/Classification/Aimpoint Selection (U); C.A. Paiva; Infrared Information Symposium Proceedings for Targets, backgrounds and Discrimination (Classified Paper: SECRET), Volume II, (January 1998)

Theater Targets Plume Edge Extraction and Hardbody Aimpoint Selection (U); C.A. Paiva; National Target/Threat Signature Data System (NTDS) Conference Working Papers Aberdeen Test Center, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, MD, (15 July 1997)

Theater Targets Plume Edge Extraction and Hardbody Aimpoint Selection: (U); C.A. Paiva; Automatic Object Recognition VII: Advances In ATR Algorithms and Systems I VI; Gerald C. Holst, Editors, Proceedings of the International Society of Optical Engineering (SPIE) AeroSense Conference Proceedings SPIE Volume 3069, (23 April 1997)

Target Edge Extraction and Morphological Image Segmentation for Discrimination of PRC M-9 from North Korean Backgrounds (Using MOSART and APART Atmospheric Radiative Transmission Codes): C.A. Paiva; (Abstracts) Air Force Research Laboratory, Geophysics Directorate 19th Annual Review of Atmospheric Transmission Models Proceedings (1996)


Mobile Foreign Missile Target Edge Extraction and Aimpoint Selection Using Region Growing Morphological Segmentation; C.A. Paiva; Infrared Information Symposium Proceedings for Targets, Backgrounds and Discrimination, Volume II (Classified Paper: SECRET) (1996)

Morphological and Segmentation Processing of Four Mideast Targets Using Synthetic Scene Generator Model (SSGM) and Advanced Visual Systems (AVS) Image Processing Package. US Army Automotive Tank Command Ground Targets Modeling and Validation Conference Proceedings VI (1995)

Maximum Detection Range of Very Low Intensity Targets Using Morphological and Segmentation Image Processing Techniques; C.A. Paiva; Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling and Testing VI, Gerald C Holst, Editors, Proceedings of the International society of Optical Engineers (SPIE) AeroSense Proceedings SPIE Volume 2470, (10-20 April 1995)


Maximum Detection Range of Very Low Intensity Targets (via SSGM VI/OSC 18 ) Using Marr-Hildreth and Sobel Edge-Detection of Fourier Transform Imagery; C.A. Paiva; 18 Annual Atmospheric Transmission Conference Proceedings (1995), Air Force Research Laboratory Geophysics Directorate

Maximum Detection range of Target Edge Intensity Using Morphological and Segmentation Image Processing Techniques; C.A. Paiva; US Army Automotive Tank Command Ground Targets Modeling and Validation Conference Proceedings V (1994)

Angle-of-Attack Effects in CHARM/DSP Data Comparisons (U); C.A. Paiva, (USAF Research Laboratory, Propulsion Directorate), and R.B. Lyons, (Aerojet GenCorp); Proceedings of Joint Army, Air Force, Navy, NASA, (JANNAF) Plume Technology Conference: (Classified Paper: SECRET/NOFORN) (1989)

Cavitation in Macro-Fluvial Processes and the Implications for Geologic Time; C.A. Paiva; Graduate Thesis for Masters Degree in Geophysics (1985); Advisor and Editor: Dr Harold Slusher, Ph.D., D.Sc.; University of Texas at El Paso Physics Department

Maritime Tactical Nuclear War; C.A. Paiva; Research Paper, US Naval War College, (1982)


PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIP

Creation Research Society
Institute for Creation Research Staff Scientist
International Society for Optical Engineers (SPIE)
International Technical Group on Penetrating Radiation (ITGPR)
Optics Society of America (OSA)
American Physical Society (APS)
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Automatic Target Recognition Working Group (ATRWG)
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) East Asia Working Group
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Theater Ballistic Missile Defense: Asia-Pacific Region Working Group
Atlantic Council of the United States Senior Councilor
United States Naval Institute (USNI)
American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE)
Organization of Naval Intelligence Professionals (NIP)
Affiliation of Christian Geologists (ACG)
Imaging Physicist for Global Underwater Search Team (GUST)

RECOGNITION

Marquis? Who?s Who in America: Science and Engineering (2004-5 Edition)
Marquis? Who?s Who in America (2004-5 Edition)
Marquis? Who?s Who in the World (2004-5 Edition)

U.S. Delegate for Atlantic Treaty Association at 47th General Assembly Meeting of the Atlantic Council of the United States

Recognized as Lead Image Analyst in Washington Times Insight On The News Magazine Article: Noah?s Ark? Insight Exclusive (20 November 2000)

[statisticool]

Any relevant biology experience?

sf, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots?

[sfseaserpent]

Paiva said in his written report of his analysis of the Clark video "Creation science models, certainly those incorporating Pre-Deluvian fauna and flora existing in a Post-Deluvian environment, will probably utilize the Clark Discovery."

jzs said "Of course."

So what!? If our video shows that sea serpents exist who cares what group uses it for whatever purposes. All that matters to us is that our video contains images of several sea serpents swimming in S.F. Bay. If you have a problem with creationists using our video for their purposes then go argue with the creationists about their beliefs. That's your job!

[statisticool]

So what!? If our video shows that sea serpents exist who cares what group uses it for whatever purposes. All that matters to us is that our video contains images of several sea serpents swimming in S.F. Bay. If you have a problem with creationists using our video for their purposes then go argue with the creationists about their beliefs. That's your job!

So what? You obviously think it is important if you post his credentials showing he belongs to those organizations.

But it shows that the analysis you are relying on might be based on motives other than relating what animals are really there. They might want to say something is there, just like with the ark stuff. In this case they might want to say there are sea monsters, to attempt to prove flood stuff. They might. But again, and you're right here, they might not.

But anyway, do you think they have relevant biology experience?

And second and most importantly, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots that you can post?

[sfseaserpent]

jzs said "Any relevant biology experience?"

Paiva's expertise as an image analyst was primarily used to determine that the objects in our video are animate not inanimate objects. Also, Paiva and Dr. Slusher were able to determine the size, speed of travel, shape, etc of the animals. Once those things were determined any unbiased sane person can recognise that the animals in our video could not be any known animal. You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. However, we also had Dr. Ed Bousfield, an expert zoologist, examine the video and Paiva's report and he agreed with Paiva and Slusher that our video contains images of several gigantic, serpentine marine animals.

When Bruce Champagne contacted us and expressed his skepticism of our claim and the Paiva/Slusher analysis we gave him permission to do his own independent analysis of our video.

jzs said "sf, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots?"

What expertise and proof do you have to support your claim that the screenshots are highly distorted?

[sfseaserpent]

sfseaserpent said "So what!? If our video shows that sea serpents exist who cares what group uses it for whatever purposes. All that matters to us is that our video contains images of several sea serpents swimming in S.F. Bay. If you have a problem with creationists using our video for their purposes then go argue with the creationists about their beliefs. That's your job!"

jzs "So what? You obviously think it is important if you post his credentials showing he belongs to those organizations."

No. We just posted his entire resume. Don't act like a typical biased skeptic and make implications where none exist.

jzs said "But it shows that the analysis you are relying on might be based on motives other than relating what animals are really there."

You can believe that is a possibility if you want to but until you read the entire Paiva/Slusher report, view the entire video or provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who analyses our video and the Paiva/Slusher report and they prove with supporting documentation that your claim is correct then your statement is pure conjecture.

jzs said "They might want to say something is there, just like with the ark stuff. In this case they might want to say there are sea monsters, to attempt to prove flood stuff. They might. But again, and you're right here, they might not."

So until you have proof they are just saying our video contains images of several sea serpents when it in fact it doesn't in an attempt to prove "flood stuff" you can't assert that is why they arrived at their conclusion.

This is why we are inviting you to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice to analyse our video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis. If your "expert" agrees with Paiva, Slusher and Champagne will you still argue that their analyses are wrong?

jzs said "And second and most importantly, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots that you can post?"

That's just your opinion. What expertise and proof do you have to support that opinion? Besides, what are you claiming is "highly distorted" in our screenshots?

[Pyrrho]

jzs said "sf, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots?"

What expertise and proof do you have to support your claim that the screenshots are highly distorted?

Would 15 years of experience working with digital photographs do? Because I have that much experience and I process digital photographs on a daily basis.

Your images are distorted, although a more correct way of explaining it would be that because they are compressed JPEG format, the original detail is compromised by the lossy compression algorithm. What you've posted on your website are screen grabs from a Macintosh computer monitor. The images were zoomed to 250% of their original size--what this did was to map the original pixels to the monitor pixels. That's not a real problem. The real problem is the JPEG compression.

What's more, the images were saved as PDF files (Adobe Acrobat). Although Adobe Photoshop (which is the program you used) can save files in the PDF format, the Photoshop PDF format also uses JPEG compression. So, your "original" PDF image was alread compressed; you opened it in Photoshop, yet, instead of saving it directly to the JPEG format, you saved a screen grab and save it as a JPEG. This did two things: one, it altered the color depth of the image. Two, it increased the distortion caused by the JPEG compression algorithm.

Other issues: it is evident from the screen grab that what is visible on your website is only about 35% of the full image. It isn't a full frame. Zooming it to 250% only increases apparent size of the pixels. Digital video doesn't generate images at 1584 x 1188 x 72 pixels. At most, you're going to get 800 x 600 from common video cameras, and mostly likely a lot less...640 x 480 is probably more common. We have no way of knowing what the original video images were like. They certainly weren't 1584 x 1188--digital video doesn't have that kind of storage capacity. Standard videotape is nowhere near that pixel depth.

Contrast adjustments--any adjustments--in Photoshop are destructive processes. You really have no guarantee--and no way of  knowing--if the details that become more apparent after contrast changes are of the subject you wish to study or of the JPEG artifacts.

The upshot of all of this is that it doesn't matter what expert looks at your pictures and declares them to be sea serpents, because there simply isn't enough image data in the images to make any such determination.

Similar patterns can be made by fish that are skimming the surface for food. In this case, what you're claiming are sea serpents could simply be  surface-dwelling fish skimming for food. But, it's impossible to know for certain based on the pixelated photographs you've provided.

[mono]
EXIF Information for 1stanimal3.jpg

Orientation: Normal
X Resolution: 72.0
Y Resolution: 72.0
Resolution Unit Inches
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
Date Time: 2005:08:03 14:46:11
EXIF Color Space Uncalibrated
Pixel X Dimension 1584
Pixel Y Dimension 1188
[/mono]

[sfseaserpent]

Don_Fernandez said "Look, I wouldn't trust myself on quantum chemistry because is not my area of expertise.
Why should I believe that your 'experts' are trustworthy?"

If you don't believe "our experts" are trustworthy then provide us with an unbiased "expert" that YOU trust and we will be glad to send them free copies of our video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis. That's why we came here. We wanted to give the skeptic community an opportunity to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of their choice who would be willing to analysis our entire video and provide supporting documentation for their conclusion. How more fair can we be?

DF said "Physicists are not marine biologists, if they think they saw a serpent in your video their opinion is not that of an expert."

Do YOU need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows? Besides, as we just stated, Paiva and Slusher, as experts in image analysis and physics were able to determine that the physical characteristics and behavior of the animals in our video don't match any known living or extinct animal.

DF said "Bruce Champagne gets mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on Sea Serpents. A link to an article from there reveals that he got his degree in 'marine biology' from The Union Institute (http://www.tui.edu), a distance learning institution.
Sorry, before I chose chemistry I did study some biology, including field experience in collecting marine invertebrates and lab work, you can't learn much stuff about life from books only. I can't hold highly the expertise of someone getting a degree in marine biology from a mail/internet based program. Especially not if that university does not offer marine biology degrees, but allows the student to design their own degree.
If you think that makes him an expert please find the ranking of the Union Institute among Marine Biology universities."

If you want a copy of Bruce Champagne's full resume send us an email with your mailing address and we will send you a copy. Since Bruce does have a BS in Marine Biology that qualifies him as an expert to determine whether or not the animals in our video are any known marine animal.

DF said "A search in Scholar.google.com for author B* Champagne restricted to the field of biology fails to reveal any scientific articles by Bruce Champagne. It actually reveals that B. Champagnes are scarce in the biological sciences, and none of them is the self-styled marine biologist Bruce.
Ergo: he is not a recognized scientist in the field, and might not even have a formal training."

It doesn't mean he doesn't have a formal training in marine biology. Why don't you first read his analysis, the Paiva/Slusher analysis and view our entire video before you decide anything?

DF said "In logic you committed the 'appeal to authority' fallacy, by appealing to people that are not authorities in the field, your 'experts' are talking of things beyond their expertise."

You're wrong. They are "experts" in their fields and are NOT talking about things beyond their expertise and you haven't proven that they aren't "experts" in their fields and are talking about things beyond their expertise. You are only making an unsubstantiated claim that they aren't "experts" in their fields and are talking about things beyond their expertise.

DF said "Clifford A. Paiva does appear in some scientific articles, unrelated to image analysis as far as I could find. I'll assume he's an expert in image analysis, then he can tell you if the image has not been tampered, he can tell you that the image shows certain shapes, but not being a biologist I don't think he can pronounce with certainty that the video shows sea serpents."

Some of the things Paiva has determined is that our video has not been tampered with in any manner, that the objects in our video are animate, that the shape of the animal is serpentine, the length is 75+ feet long and the animal behaves in a manner that no known marine animal can behave in that it makes a 180 degree turn on itself and lifts a portion of itself approximately 8 meters out of the water while swimming against an incoming tide. Do you know of any known animal that fits that description and can behave in that manner?

DF said "Thus I want you to provide better experts, and I see no need to do your homework for you."

Before we have to provide "better experts" to you how about you first viewing our entire video and reading the analyses of the "experts" we have already provided? Since you won't trust the opinion of any "expert" we provide we invite you to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who is willing to analyse our video and the other analyses. How more reasonable and fair can we be? We can't do your homework for you.  

DF said "And anyway, your video has aired on National Geographic where they had experts who said it only showed birds."

First of all, NG had only one "forensic image consultant to the FBI" give his opinion with no supporting documentation of what he thought was in our video. His name was Grant Fredericks. Since his opinion was aired he has not provided us with any supporting documentation for his conclusion that the animals in our video was only "birds". We find it amusing that one the one hand skeptics claim that our "experts'" opinions are invalid even though they have supporting documentation which their peers can review yet on the other hand they will automatically believe the opinion of someone who is not an expert in marine biology or zoology whose conclusion is that it is only "birds" in our video. Isn't that being hypocritical?

DF said "Now I understand why you are so sensitive about being ridiculed, you have found a lot of that already..."

We are not sensitive about being ridiculed. In fact, we expect it from cynics, skeptics and nonbelievers. However, our purpose in posting here was an attempt to see if the skeptics here would provide us with an "expert" that they trust rather than ridicule us. Don't worry, we are capable of giving as good as we get but we don't think that serves the purpose of a valid scientific inquiry.

DF said "If you want to challenge those that disagree with your interpretation, you should also rise to the challenges that they present you."

NONE of those who have disagreed with our claim that our video contains images of several sea serpents including NG and Grant Fredericks even bothered to read the Paiva/Slusher report in order to verify whether or not it is correct. We challenged them first to read it and point out where it is incorrect. ALL of them have refused to do so. Are you also going to refuse to do so?

DF said "Prove that your "experts" are authorities in the field."

Their resumes prove that they are "experts" in the field. If you don't think they are then provide us with someone you think is who would be willing to analyse our entire video and provide us with supporting documentation for their opinion.

[Pyrrho]

Have the experts ruled out all other possible aquatic animals, before deciding the videos showed "sea serpents"?

Without other documented videos of known, verified sea serpents, how did the experts know these videos depicted sea serpents?

We're skeptics; we like evidence; fuzzy videos aren't enough. Expert opinions of fuzzy videos aren't enough. Just because someone says, "This is a video of  a sea serpent," doesn't make it so.

We're not here to prove that this isn't a video of a sea serpent. Up to you to prove that it is. For that, I think you're going to have to produce a specimen of the critter, or some clear photographs. Pixelated photos of oblique views of the water just don't cut it.

[Don_Fernandez]

One that page, the pic with the caption "another frame showing the 1st animal swimming" has a date of Wed 2:42pm. But the one below it, with the caption "seconds later the animal makes a looping turn" has a date of Wed 2:23pm.

Jzs, the dating on the images comes from the system time (Mac OS X menu bar clock), the frames themselves might be in the sequence that the Clark brothers claim. What this shows is not a problem with the video, but with the image manipulation skills of people that rely on image interpretation to make conclusions...

Really, sfs, full screen captures are not the best way to get your images, especially when Mac OS X by default makes those screen captures PDFs with JPEG compression already on them and then you convert them to further compressed JPEGs. JPEG compresion always results in distorsion, it's a lossy compression technique. Pyrrho said it best and more completely already.

jzs said "sf, do you have more than highly distorted screenshots?"

What expertise and proof do you have to support your claim that the screenshots are highly distorted?

I agree with jzs, and I have the expertise of my own eyes and of experience with image aqcquisition, manipulation and interpretation.
You want details on my expertise? I use electron microscopy frequently, and I know many of the pitfalls of relying in a 2D image to derive 3D information. I know very well that once you approach the limits of resolution of your imaging equipment what you think might be a tubular feature might be a line, and viceversa (and other ways to misinterpret shapes and depths). I have also worked with image manipulation, adjusting contrast and brightness can induce artifacts. I also have some experience with scanning probe microscopy, where lots of filters (contrast and brightness is just the simplest one) can be made to the images, resulting several times in artifacts, a well known problem in the field.
If you have the original files, not photoshopped or otherwise manipulated ones, then present them in your site, so others can judge for themselves, based on the original evidence not on your filtered (pun intended) view of the images.
Now just as I call into question the expertise of others I don't make false claims about mine. My expertise does not allow me to deny that your images are of sea-serpents, but they allow me to doubt that any significant information can be extracted from them, the resolution is not high enough. I have seen much higher resolution files from which it's iffy to decide something and more images are needed to reach conclusions about the observed features.

I suggest you use a high-res digital camera for your next encounters with the monster.

[google]Edward L Bousfield[/google] hardly seems like an unbiased party to judge your "evidence."
The Google hits show that, if he were to be Edward Lloyd Bousfield, he could indeed be a zoologist, but an expert on invertebrates not on marine serpents.
I guess he would tell you that your sea serpent is a Cadborosaurus... seems like that's his obsession.

Show unbiased experts please.

Thanks for the resume of Cliff Paiva. Seems like I was right, he is not an expert at identifying sea creatures. He is an expert in using image analysis for "ballistic missile defense target detection, classification and identification (DCI)." His publication list does show that what you asked him for is beyond his area of scientific expertise. And a masters degree from a creationist institute seems questionable on how scientific that might be.

You have yet to show that Bruce Champagne does have authentic and verifiable credentials in marine biology.  Without such evidence I remain doubtful about the extent and quality of his education in marine biology, and thus I can't consider him an expert. As I said, his BS comes from a distance learning institution that allows people to define their own courses and degree, not from an accredited and recognized institution in the biological sciences.

I am perfectly capable of trusting an expert you provide as long as it is really an unbiased expert. You have not convinced me that your self-proclaimed experts are really experts, I have valid reasons to doubt their credentials and to think they are biased.
You make the claim, your defend it and you prove it.
You make the claim you provide the experts.

"The Fact That One Does Believe In The Existence Of Something Does Not Alter The Fact That It Does NOT Exist!"

[sfseaserpent]

Pyrrho said "We have no way of knowing what the original video images were like."

The original VHS tape was converted into an AVID Project OMFI format by Inspector R. Tolosa of the San Francisco Police Department Forensic Video Analysis Unit. The analyses by Paiva, Slusher and Champagne were done using the OMFI file. They are the experts. If you want more information or a less distorted version you can contact BSM Associates C/O Clifford Paiva, 159 Campfire Drive, California City, Ca. 93505. The versions of those frames of our video which are posted on our blog clearly show that the animal is one long continuous object and not a line of birds flying in formation as was claimed by Grant Fredericks on the NG program.

Pyrrho said "Contrast adjustments--any adjustments--in Photoshop are destructive processes. You really have no guarantee--and no way of  knowing--if the details that become more apparent after contrast changes are of the subject you wish to study or of the JPEG artifacts."

We included an untouched version of the frames to compare to the contrasted version. There is nothing in the contrasted version hat isn't in the original version.

Pyrrho said "The upshot of all of this is that it doesn't matter what expert looks at your pictures and declares them to be sea serpents, because there simply isn't enough image data in the images to make any such determination."

Since you haven't seen and analysed our entire video you are in no position to make that claim. Paiva, Slusher and Champagne HAVE viewed and analysed our entire video, have provided their supporting documentation for peer review and they disagree with your claim.

In his analysis Bruce Champagne states "Criticisms of the Clark video have erroneously stated that the video is of little or no value. If the researcher studies the Clark's video record of January 26, 2004 objectively and in contextual detail, valuable information can be obtained which may corroborate not only the Clark brothers' account, but also the current dataset."

Pyrrho said "Similar patterns can be made by fish that are skimming the surface for food. In this case, what you're claiming are sea serpents could simply be  surface-dwelling fish skimming for food."

Are you a marine biologist or zoologist? Have you viewed our entire video to see what patterns are formed? Can surface-dwelling fish skimming for food raise themselves 8 meters above the water while continuing to move forward against an incoming tide because that's what one of the animals in our video does?  

Pyrrho said "But, it's impossible to know for certain based on the pixelated photographs you've provided."

Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses weren't done using the pixelated photographs we've provided on our blog. They were done using the original video converted into an AVID Project OMFI format.

[Pyrrho]

Pyrrho said "We have no way of knowing what the original video images were like."

The original VHS tape was converted into an AVID Project OMFI format by Inspector R. Tolosa of the San Francisco Police Department Forensic Video Analysis Unit. The analyses by Paiva, Slusher and Champagne were done using the OMFI file. They are the experts. If you want more information or a less distorted version you can contact BSM Associates C/O Clifford Paiva, 159 Campfire Drive, California City, Ca. 93505. The versions of those frames of our video which are posted on our blog clearly show that the animal is one long continuous object and not a line of birds flying in formation as was claimed by Grant Fredericks on the NG program.

Thanks. That gives us a bit more information to suggest what the original quality and resolution of the video might be. Might be worth a try to contact BSM for a copy.

Pyrrho said "Contrast adjustments--any adjustments--in Photoshop are destructive processes. You really have no guarantee--and no way of  knowing--if the details that become more apparent after contrast changes are of the subject you wish to study or of the JPEG artifacts."

We included an untouched version of the frames to compare to the contrasted version. There is nothing in the contrasted version hat isn't in the original version.

I beg to differ, but there is...there has to be...it is an unavoidable result of JPEG compression and Photoshop manipulation. True, nothing is added to the image; what is already there becomes altered, and with JPEG, adjoining pixels are often blended. You lose information.

Pyrrho said "The upshot of all of this is that it doesn't matter what expert looks at your pictures and declares them to be sea serpents, because there simply isn't enough image data in the images to make any such determination."

Since you haven't seen and analysed our entire video you are in no position to make that claim. Paiva, Slusher and Champagne HAVE viewed and analysed our entire video, have provided their supporting documentation for peer review and they disagree with your claim.

Wasn't referring to your video. Was referring to the images posted on your website.

In his analysis Bruce Champagne states "Criticisms of the Clark video have erroneously stated that the video is of little or no value. If the researcher studies the Clark's video record of January 26, 2004 objectively and in contextual detail, valuable information can be obtained which may corroborate not only the Clark brothers' account, but also the current dataset."

Pyrrho said "Similar patterns can be made by fish that are skimming the surface for food. In this case, what you're claiming are sea serpents could simply be  surface-dwelling fish skimming for food."

Are you a marine biologist or zoologist? Have you viewed our entire video to see what patterns are formed? Can surface-dwelling fish skimming for food raise themselves 8 meters above the water while continuing to move forward against an incoming tide because that's what one of the animals in our video does?  

Nope, I'm not a marine biologist or zoologist. Seen plenty of fish skimming the water surface for food, though...looks just like a snake swimming. Seen that, too.

No evidence, unless it's on the video, of anything raising itself 8 meters above water. That's roughly 24 feet. Pretty impressive, I agree...if the 8 meters is correct.

Pyrrho said "But, it's impossible to know for certain based on the pixelated photographs you've provided."

Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses weren't done using the pixelated photographs we've provided on our blog. They were done using the original video converted into an AVID Project OMFI format.

Ok.

[statisticool]

j
any unbiased sane person can recognise that the animals in our video could not be any known animal.

If you only show us distorted images, no one can.

What expertise and proof do you have to support your claim that the screenshots are highly distorted?

The proof is in the pictures themselves. They show JPEG compression, and they are blurry. One can barely make out water, let alone anything in it. That is obvious. But you're avoiding the issue of making your video available to interested skeptics. I wonder why?

[Crotalus]

Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses weren't done using the pixelated photographs we've provided on our blog. They were done using the original video converted into an AVID Project OMFI format.

Then why not include the better photos on your website.  It seems to me that if you have higher rez photos that show more detail you would want to have them up for people to see.  You honestly can't see why people are sceptical when viewing those poor quality photos?

However, we also had Dr. Ed Bousfield, an expert zoologist, examine the video and Paiva's report and he agreed with Paiva and Slusher that our video contains images of several gigantic, serpentine marine animals.

His opinion is way to biased to be taken seriously.  His obsession with finding sea serpents is making him see them wherever he wants to.

Do YOU need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows? Besides, as we just stated, Paiva and Slusher, as experts in image analysis and physics were able to determine that the physical characteristics and behavior of the animals in our video don't match any known living or extinct animal.

We are not discussing something as simple as "which way the wind blows", we are discussing long extinct creatures in SF bay.  Paiva and Slusher may be experts in image analysis, but how can they determine that the animals don't match any known living or extinct animal?  They are not experts in that field, and thus their "opinion" is not valid when it pertains to anything regarding zoology, biology, paleontology or marine life.  It is just that...an opinion.

Why the secrecy?  It is fairly obvious that you would get the credit if something was indeed found.  Why not post the video or high rez photos for us to see so we can discuss this topic fully and not just bicker over some poor photos?

[statisticool]

You can believe that is a possibility if you want to but until you read the entire Paiva/Slusher report, view the entire video or provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who analyses our video and the Paiva/Slusher report and they prove with supporting documentation that your claim is correct then your statement is pure conjecture.

We've been asking for your video all along. I'll ask again: can we see your video?

So until you have proof they are just saying our video contains images of several sea serpents when it in fact it doesn't in an attempt to prove "flood stuff" you can't assert that is why they arrived at their conclusion.

I didn't assert that. I did say they might be doing that. Please read closer.

This is why we are inviting you to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice to analyse our video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis. If your "expert" agrees with Paiva, Slusher and Champagne will you still argue that their analyses are wrong?

Here's where you're off track. You could get 100 experts to agree (oh, and it is still not right to call anyone an expert who doesn't have experience in biology as well as image analysis in this case) and you'd still not convince many people. As I've said, fairies were pronounced by image experts to be real... and their pictures were infinitely clearer than yours.

That's just your opinion. What expertise and proof do you have to support that opinion? Besides, what are you claiming is "highly distorted" in our screenshots?

No, it is a fact. The pictures on your page are distorted. But going by your criteria for 'expert', I can multiply numbers like 96*97 in my head in about 3 seconds, and therefore I am an expert in image analysis.

Do you expect us to swallow that this (the last picture on http://home.access4less.net/~sfseaserpent/id7.html) is the "the square snout above the water and the curved line of the top of the arch"? Your photo only shows blobs of black, surrounded by a pixelated mess of neon green.

You'll have to do better.

But, again, you're talking about minutae. Can you make the video available to all? I believe ElectronicMonk analyzed some pictures (9/11 and a mystery object that turned out to be a bird) a while ago. He's not into creationsim as far as I know, so he may not be what you're looking for.

[statisticool]

Do you agree, or disagree that the following pictures of whales near San Francisco can look like 'serpents' from different angles?

Some pics here, of whales near San Francisco. Some of the pics, such as this one http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales2.JPG, look thin and serpent like (obviously because whales necessarily have to be mostly under the water, and the viewer is almost always seeing them in profile- because why would whales be swimming towards the shore to beach themselves?). This one too: http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales6.JPG, ooh and this one REALLY looks like a serpent: http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales8.JPG .

[sfseaserpent]

Pyrrho said "Have the experts ruled out all other possible aquatic animals, before deciding the videos showed 'sea serpents'?

Yes! You have a hell of a lot of nerve to even suggest that they wouldn't first eliminate all other aquatic animals before coming to their conclusions that they are not known animals. Do you think that these "experts" wouldn't be smart enough to first eliminate the possibility that the animals in our video are some known aquatic animal before concluding that they are sea serpents? Bruce Champagne goes into great detail why the animals in our video could not possibly be any known aquatic animal. Why don't you obtain a copy of his analysis and read it first then we could have an intellegent discussion about it?

Pyrrho "Without other documented videos of known, verified sea serpents, how did the experts know these videos depicted sea serpents?"

What's that? A skeptic's Catch-22?

Pyrrho said "We're skeptics; we like evidence..."

NHS! We were skeptical too until we saw a sea serpent beach itself only 20 yards away from us. Then it took us almost 20 years to get some video of them. Why don't you look at all the evidence before you decide it isn't evidence. Even kangeroo courts will look at the evidence before they disregard it!

Pyrrho said "fuzzy videos aren't enough."

Are you an expert image analysis who can determine that the video is too fuzzy even though you haven't seen it?

Pyrrho said "Expert opinions of fuzzy videos aren't enough."

It's funny how skeptic's can claim that the video is clear enough to support Grant Frederick's opinion that the objects in our video are "birds" but it is too "fuzzy" to support Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagnes opinions that it is a 75+ foot long serpentine marine animal.

Pyrrho said "Just because someone says, 'This is a video of  a sea serpent,' doesn't make it so."

Just because someone says, "This is a video of birds, doesn't make it so! Our "experts" aren't just saying our video is of a sea serpent. They have provided supporting documentation which can be examined and verified by their peers which is more than what Grant Fredericks has provided.

Pyrrho said "We're not here to prove that this isn't a video of a sea serpent. Up to you to prove that it is."

We are claiming that our video is of several sea serpents and have proven it by obtaining two independent analyses with supporting documentation. If you think those analyses are wrong the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that they are wrong. Just saying they are wrong doesn't make it so. It's up to you to prove that it is so!

Don't you skeptics get it yet? We aren't here to prove to you that our video contains images of sea serpents. We don't need to prove it here because we have proven it elsewhere. We are inviting you to prove that we are wrong by providing us with an unbiased expert of your choice who would be willing to analyse our entire video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis, the Champagne analysis and provide us with the supporting documentation that proves them wrong. Why are you having a problem understanding this?

Pyrrho said "For that, I think you're going to have to produce a specimen of the critter, or some clear photographs. Pixelated photos of oblique views of the water just don't cut it."

Our "experts' " opinions are based on viewing and analysing the entire 3 and 1/2 minute video which you haven't even seen. What's the matter? Are you afraid to provide us with an unbiased expert of your choice because it's possible that they might agree with our "experts"?

[Crotalus]

After doing some web research on "Cadborosaurus" it is amazing that a creature that comes to the surface so often and is so big that all we get is crappy pics and eyewitness accounts that lead nowhere.

Take the giant squid Architeuthis, for example, a huge predator that lives in the DEEP ocean and is very elusive.  Yet we have specimens, pieces of tentacles, and now, as of two weeks ago, some really good photos of the squid (that don't need image analysis experts to tell us that it is indeed a squid).

But when it comes to something that comes to the surface all the time and is the size of whale, we get crappy photos.....amazing.

[Crotalus]

Bruce Champagne goes into great detail why the animals in our video could not possibly be any known aquatic animal. Why don't you obtain a copy of his analysis and read it first then we could have an intellegent discussion about it?

Could you please provide us with that or a link to that analysis?  You talk of these yet don't provide us with the information.

[statisticool]

Then it took us almost 20 years to get some video of them. Why don't you look at all the evidence before you decide it isn't evidence.

Which is what we've been asking you for. Reports by claimed experts is not evidence. Blurry and distorted pics are not evidence. The video, if it is clear, would be a better thing to present to everyone.

Will you?

We are claiming that our video is of several sea serpents and have proven it by obtaining two independent analyses with supporting documentation.

No, you have not. Anymore then expert analysis has proven the ark to be on Mt. Ararat.

We are inviting you to prove that we are wrong by providing us with an unbiased expert of your choice who would be willing to analyse our entire video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis, the Champagne analysis and provide us with the supporting documentation that proves them wrong. Why are you having a problem understanding this?

I think all of us would like to since we've been asking about it. If you choose not to, then that is your issue.

[Crotalus]

We would love to see all your data.  But you want to give it to a limited number of people.  Have you posted your data/video/pics to any professional forums relating to marine biology?

I guarantee that if I had taken those pictures to the Zoology profs at my univerisity when I was there, they would've laughed me out of the building at such speculation.

You just don't come to the DEFINITIVE conclusions like the ones you're making without more evdience than what you have.

[sfseaserpent]

jzs said "Do you agree, or disagree that the following pictures of whales near San Francisco can look like 'serpents' from different angles?"

The angles those photos were taken don't make them look like sea serpents and they don't look anything like the animals we saw in any of our sightings, photos or video. BTW, we have seen whales in SF Bay and they didn't look or behave like the animals we saw, photographed or videotaped. Do you think we are so stupid we couldn't recognize a beached whale from only 20 yards away?

jzs said "www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales2.JPG, look thin and serpent like (obviously because whales necessarily have to be mostly under the water, and the viewer is almost always seeing them in profile-"

When we took the video we weren't viewing the animals in profile. We were on a hillside approximately 100 feet above the surface of the water.

We are not claiming that it isn't possible for someone to mistake a whale for a sea serpent but we KNOW we didn't. If you read Bruce Champagne's analysis he explains why it is impossible for the animals in our video to be whales.

jzs said "because why would whales be swimming towards the shore to beach themselves?".

It's a known fact that occasionally whales will swim towards the shore and beach themselves for some unknown reason but what we saw beach itself was not a whale. It was a sea serpent that was chasing a sea lion.


jzs said "ooh and this one REALLY looks like a serpent: http://www.andreaonline.de/whalewatching/whales8.JPG ."

Maybe to you it does but it doesn't to us and it certainly doesn't look anything like what we have seen swimming in SF Bay.

[Crotalus]

If you read Bruce Champagne's analysis he explains why it is impossible for the animals in our video to be whales.

PLEASE provide us with that analysis.   I, as I'm sure many others here, would love to read it.  You ask us to read it but don't provide it?

[sfseaserpent]

Crotalus said "We would love to see all your data. But you want to give it to a limited number of people."

That's not true! If that was the case we wouldn't be coming here and inviting you to provide us with an unbiased expert of your choice. We are willing to have our video analysed by any number of experts for their opinions. However, we are not interested in the opinions of biased, cynical, skeptical nonexperts. We are not going to waste our time and money providing them with a free copy. They can contact BSM Associates and obtain a copy of our video and the Paiva/Slusher report from them.

Crotalus said "Have you posted your data/video/pics to any professional forums relating to marine biology?"

No. We decided that we are not going to post our video on any forum on the internet but if you can provide us with the name of any marine biologist who you trust and who is willing to analyse our entire video and provide supporting documentation for their opinion we will be glad to send them a free copy of our video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis.

Crotalus said "I guarantee that if I had taken those pictures to the Zoology profs at my univerisity when I was there, they would've laughed me out of the building at such speculation."

That's why we decided to have our video analysed by an expert image analyst before approaching biased, skeptical, cynical zoology professors at any university or anyone else including you. Now you and they can't just laugh at us and dismiss the whole thing without looking at the entire video and proving our "experts" wrong.

Crotalus said "You just don't come to the DEFINITIVE conclusions like the ones you're making without more evdience than what you have."

How do you know how much evidence we have? Have you seen and analysed our entire video? Have you read the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis? We can come to our own DEFINITIVE conclusion because we had a DEFINITIVE sighting on February 5, 1985 when we saw a sea serpent beach itself only 20 yards away from us. It doesn't matter to us whether or not you or anyone else "believes" us because we KNOW what we saw was a sea serpent. BTW, we are not the only people who are claiming to have had DEFINITIVE sightings of a sea serpent in this area!

[sfseaserpent]

Crotalus said "PLEASE provide us with that analysis.   I, as I'm sure many others here, would love to read it.  You ask us to read it but don't provide it?"

We will be glad to provide you with a copy. Send us your email address and we will email you a copy. Our email address sfseaserpent9@hotmail,com .

[Crotalus]

Email sent, thank you.

How do you know how much evidence we have? Have you seen and analysed our entire video? Have you read the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis? We can come to our own DEFINITIVE conclusion because we had a DEFINITIVE sighting on February 5, 1985 when we saw a sea serpent beach itself only 20 yards away from us. It doesn't matter to us whether or not you or anyone else "believes" us because we KNOW what we saw was a sea serpent. BTW, we are not the only people who are claiming to have had DEFINITIVE sightings of a sea serpent in this area!

Well, sorry, I disagree that one sighting of an object in the water is definitive evidence of sea serpents.

But what I don't understand is if you are so sure of what is on your video and it is so clear of what it is, why aren't you talking to ABC news or Fox news or why hasn't a renound marine biologist come foward and said, "holy crap the world has to see this new sea serpent I found!".  I mean, a video from 20 yards should be awesome if this thing is as big as you state.  Instead you are on internet forums trying to get experts to come foward.  If you had strong evidence, scientists from all over the world would be pushing and shoving to get at your data and you'd be front page on every newspaper around.  Just seems odd to me.

[sfseaserpent]

sfseaserpent said "Then it took us almost 20 years to get some video of them. Why don't you look at all the evidence before you decide it isn't evidence."

jzs said "Which is what we've been asking you for."

We just got here and ASKED YOU to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who would be willing to analyse our entire video and provide us with supporting documentation for their conclusion. Anyone else can get a copy through BSM Associates. We don't intend to post the entire video on the internet or spend our time and money providing a copy to everyone who wants one.

jzs said "Reports by claimed experts is not evidence."

The video is evidence and reports by "experts" who analyse the entire video and provide supporting documentation for their opinions which can be examined and verified by their peers is also evidence.

jzs "The video, if it is clear, would be a better thing to present to everyone. Will you?"

We have. We gave permission to AnimalX, KGO-TV Channel 7 in S.F. and National Geographic to show the entire video. Don't blame us because they chose not to. You should contact them and tell them you want to see the entire video. Otherwise you can get a copy from BSM Associates or if you provide us with an unbiased expert of your choice we will give them a copy and we will give them permission to make copies for any of you as long as you agree not to post any portion of it on the internet without our permission.

sfseaserpent said "We are claiming that our video is of several sea serpents and have proven it by obtaining two independent analyses with supporting documentation."

jzs said "No, you have not."

Until you view the entire video and read their analyses you can't prove your claim that we have not.

jzs said "Anymore then expert analysis has proven the ark to be on Mt. Ararat."

The expert analysis by Clifford Paiva has proven that the anomally on Mt Ararat that some people thought might be Noah's Ark was NOT Noah's Ark.

sfseaserpent said "We are inviting you to prove that we are wrong by providing us with an unbiased expert of your choice who would be willing to analyse our entire video, the Paiva/Slusher analysis, the Champagne analysis and provide us with the supporting documentation that proves them wrong. Why are you having a problem understanding this?"

jzs said "I think all of us would like to since we've been asking about it."

We are having a problem understanding this answer. Do you mean you would like to prove our "experts" wrong or that you would like to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice?

jzs said "If you choose not to, then that is your issue."

We don't understand this statement either. If we choose not to what? Could you please clarify what you are trying to say?

[sfseaserpent]

Crotalus said "Well, sorry, I disagree that one sighting of an object in the water is definitive evidence of sea serpents."

If you saw what we saw then you would disagree with yourself. Maybe you should read the account of our first sighting where we provide a detailed description of the animal we saw.

Crotalus said "But what I don't understand is if you are so sure of what is on your video and it is so clear of what it is, why aren't you talking to ABC news or Fox news or why hasn't a renound marine biologist come foward and said, 'holy crap the world has to see this new sea serpent I found!'."

It doesn't matter to us what Fox news, ABC or any other news wants to do or thinks. If they come to us we will be glad to talk to them and show them our video and our "experts" analyses but we are not going to spend our time running around trying to get them to look at our video. We would rather spend our time trying to get "experts" in the scientific community to view and analyse our video and our "experts" analyses. That's why we are wasting our time coming here.

Crotalus said "I mean, a video from 20 yards should be awesome if this thing is as big as you state."

Please try not to confuse our sightings. Our first and closest sighting on February 5, 1985 was from only 20 yards away.The video was taken on January 26, 2004 and was taken from a distance of approximately 1 to 1 and 1/2 miles away.

Crotalus said "Instead you are on internet forums trying to get experts to come foward."

No that's not what we are doing. We are trying to get skeptics who claim our "experts" are wrong to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of their choice who is willing to view and analyse our entire video and provide supporting documentation for their opinion so that we can't be accused of shopping around for biased "experts" who agree with us. We thought you guys would be up to the challenge but we guess we were wrong. At least now you can't say we didn't give you the opportunity to provide us with experts of your own and that we only shop around for biased "experts" who agree with us.
 
Crotalus said "If you had strong evidence, scientists from all over the world would be pushing and shoving to get at your data and you'd be front page on every newspaper around."

Who knows? Maybe if they become aware of our video and the different analyses of it they will be interested in viewing and analysing our video themselves. As far as we are concerned, the more the merrier!
Crotalus said "Just seems odd to me."

The truth is stranger than fiction!

[Beleth]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Whenever you see an OP that starts out like this, check out the post count of the person posting it.

If the post count is less than thirty, skip the thread entirely. Nothing good can come of your reading it, and even less good will come of your replying to it.

[Crotalus]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Whenever you see an OP that starts out like this, check out the post count of the person posting it.

If the post count is less than thirty, skip the thread entirely. Nothing good can come of your reading it, and even less good will come of your replying to it.

Good advice Beleth, I will heed it in the future.

[SkepticReport]

Crotalus said "PLEASE provide us with that analysis.   I, as I'm sure many others here, would love to read it.  You ask us to read it but don't provide it?"

We will be glad to provide you with a copy. Send us your email address and we will email you a copy. Our email address sfseaserpent9@hotmail,com .

I did yesterday. You haven't responded?

[JarnoV]

sfseaserpent: Apparently these animals were comfortable enough to spend a while at the surface, so I don't see why they wouldn't repeat this behavior. I suggest that you stakeout on the same spot you filmed the original footage, with equipment that is actually worth a sh*t (I'm not sure what you expect serious people to think of the blurry captures), and come back with footage that can be taken seriously.

I think it is highly implausible that this was a one time thing, and that these alleged sea serpents have disappeared forever. You shouldn't have to rely on footage of a ridiculously low quality to prove your theory.

Come on.