Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

PSI, Mediums, Ghosts, UFOs, Things That Go Bump In The Night
sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:17 am

Cobalt6 wrote:
We said using your BS formula and 80 feet instead of 175 feet the diameter of the animal would be closer to 26" than 13".

We were correct.

The diameter came out to 19.7" which is closer to 26" than 13".
19.7'' is awfully thin. My legs are thicker than that. Even anacondas which max out at 30 or so feet are thicker.
You must be fatter than our fat Aunt Bertha if your legs are wider than 19.7".

That calculation does not accurately apply to the animal we saw because the animal wasn't uniform in width the entire length of its body.

After about 30 feet of a uniform diameter upper portion the midsection of the animal quickly widened to at least 5 feet for approximately 15 feet then quickly tapered back down to about 3 feet in width.
Cobalt6 wrote:How does it propel itself?
With vertical undulations in its upper body and a horizontal tail that moves up and down similar to the way a whale's tail propels a whale through the water.
I chuckled. You really don't have a clue how physics works do you?
Next time you make up a sea dragon hoax, be sure to re-check your physics textbooks, your hoax would be much more believable if it conformed to actual biology.

Hint: there's a reason why sea snakes never adopted vertical undulation as a method of locomotion.
There is also a reason why laterial undulation offers great efficiency, while vertical undulation in artist's depictions of sea dragons simply would not work, or even make its way through natural selection.
We don't care that you or other scientists say it's impossible for a marine animal to move in the manner we described. you and they obviously are wrong because the animal we saw propelled itself exactly in the manner we described.

You and they didn't see the animal move.

We did.

You and your fellow scientists tell the animal we saw that it's impossible for it to swim in the manner we described.
Cobalt6 wrote:There's simply no reason for sea snakes to adopt vertical undulation for the same reasons human legs have not became conjoined forcing us to move in a manner like a seal. It isn't how evolution works.
The animal we saw isn't a sea snake and your example is stupid. It has nothing to do with why the animal we saw moves in the manner we described.
Cobalt6 wrote:2/10. I've seen better hoaxes. Also, sea dragons and dragons in general are over rated. Why not be more original next time?
This isn't a hoax so we have no choice but to describe truthfully exactly what we saw.

You may have seen good hoaxes but we saw a real sea serpent FROM ONLY 20 YARDS AWAY.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Cobalt6
BANNED
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Cobalt6 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:21 am

You must be fatter than our fat Aunt Bertha if your legs are wider than 19.7".
I read your value as inches. My apologies.
You and they didn't see the animal move.

We did.

You and your fellow scientists tell the animal we saw that it's impossible for it to swim in the manner we described.
No you did not, and you have never provided any evidence whatsoever to make us think your claims are anything other than fabrications. It's only logical to conclude you are hiding something from us that you don't want us to know about. Video footage or it didn't happen. :D

Made-up animals can move however the hell they want. Your sea serpent also breathes fire, has glowing eyes, smoky breath, and has two heads according to your comparison which you deemed ''accurate'' with Leviathan.
The animal we saw isn't a sea snake and your example is stupid. It has nothing to do with why the animal we saw moves in the manner we described.
Yes, I forgot, it belongs in the class fantasia, despite it's name and the fact no other reptiles aside from snakes have such completely serpentine bodies.
This isn't a hoax so we have no choice but to describe truthfully exactly what we saw.

You may have seen good hoaxes but we saw a real sea serpent FROM ONLY 20 YARDS AWAY.
No you didn't. Show us your damn video or else I and others can only conclude you're lying. You have NOTHING to back up your claims in the form of evidence you CLAIM to have but do not show.

If you refuse to show your evidence it only leads me and others to conclude you actually do not wish to prove anything regarding sea serpents and are making this all up for cheap entertainment.

Actually, you admitted to me you came here on this thread for entertainment purposes.
Cobalt6 wrote:
If you think you're right why did you come here?

sfseaserpent wrote:
For the same reason a cat plays with a mouse before it eats the mouse.
Cheap entertainment.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:38 am

Watch Bob & Bill avoid answering questions
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you explain how a creature with a 26" diameter body can bend at more than 90%? How does it propel itself?
sfseaserpent today wrote:Do they use a different type of English in Australia?
Yes. We use English. You use American which has a different spelling regime. Didn't you know this?
sfseaserpent today wrote:We said using your BS formula and 80 feet instead of 175 feet the diameter of the animal would be closer to 26" than 13".
A 26" diameter sea serpent can't bend at 90%. Why are you avoiding this question?
sfseaserpent today wrote: How does it bend itself at more than 90%? It's upper body is flexible enough to do that.
That is not an answer. Here is a 12" diameter tube. Are you pretending that a 26" diameter sea monster, twice this size can bend at 90 degrees?
thumbs_12inch-diameter-hose-3.jpg
and not do this?
Bent garden hose.jpg
.
sfseaserpent today wrote:How does it propel itself? With vertical undulations in its upper body and a horizontal tail that moves up and down similar to the way a whale's tail propels a whale through the water.
If the creature is bent at the middle at 90 degrees then it it is pushing in two different directions. You hoax sea monster moves in yet another direction in your video. Secondly the undulation do not go "up and down" as that would make the creature bob up and down. The horizontal coils move backwards along the body of a sea snake to push backwards against the water. Didn't you know this? Why aren't the coils moving backwards in any of your videos?

Why did you rum away from answering this question? What is the distance between the bird like objects in your video?
Sea monster curve 1.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Cobalt6
BANNED
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Cobalt6 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:41 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Watch Bob & Bill avoid answering questions
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you explain how a creature with a 26" diameter body can bend at more than 90%? How does it propel itself?
sfseaserpent today wrote:Do they use a different type of English in Australia?
Yes. We use English. You use American which has a different spelling regime. Didn't you know this?
sfseaserpent today wrote:We said using your BS formula and 80 feet instead of 175 feet the diameter of the animal would be closer to 26" than 13".
A 26" diameter sea serpent can't bend at 90%. Why are you avoiding this question?
sfseaserpent today wrote: How does it bend itself at more than 90%? It's upper body is flexible enough to do that.
That is not an answer. Here is a 12" diameter tube. Are you pretending that a 26" diameter sea monster, twice this size can bend at 90 degrees?
thumbs_12inch-diameter-hose-3.jpg
and not do this?
Bent garden hose.jpg
.
sfseaserpent today wrote:How does it propel itself? With vertical undulations in its upper body and a horizontal tail that moves up and down similar to the way a whale's tail propels a whale through the water.
If the creature is bent at the middle at 90 degrees then it it is pushing in two different directions. You hoax sea monster moves in yet another direction in your video. Secondly the undulation do not go "up and down" as that would make the creature bob up and down. The horizontal coils move backwards along the body of a sea snake to push backwards against the water. Didn't you know this? Why aren't the coils moving backwards in any of your videos?

Why did you rum away from answering this question? What is the distance between the bird like objects in your video?
Sea monster curve 1.JPG
The Clark Twins are having us all on. Refer to my previous post. I highlighted a previous statement of the Clark's in red, where it is admitted they're doing this for (quote) ''cheap entertainment''.
Last edited by Cobalt6 on Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:48 am, edited 3 times in total.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:45 am

Poodle wrote:Point of interest, boys (although you'll probably ignore this one too). In your initial post, you state ...

"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."

Did you contact them first, or did they contact you? If you contacted them first, can you explain why you chose them?
We already explained that at the beginning of this thread but we'll do it again.

Right after we took our video we contacted Jan Sundberg at GUST and told him we were sending him a copy of our video.

After Jan watched the video he said he would send it over to GUST's expert image analyst, Clifford Paiva, and if Paiva saw anything of substance in it then Paiva may be interested in analyzing the video. Jan then told us that Paiva was very critical of photos and videos of sea serpents and unless there was something substantial in the video Paiva probably wouldn't analyze our video.

We had never heard of Paiva but we told Jan to send our video to him so he could look at it.

A few weeks later we got a phone call from Paiva and he said "You got it!" then he asked us if we would allow him to do an in-depth analysis of our video.

Of course we said "yes".

As we stated earlier we met Bruce Champagne while we were discussing our video on cryptozoology.com.

Champagne posted in our thread that he didn't believe that our video contained images of sea serpents and wanted us to send him a copy of our video so he could analyze it to verify whether or not what we were claiming was true.

Champagne agreed to pay for the shipping and copying costs and also agreed not to post any portion on our video on the internet so we sent him a copy of our video.

That's how we met both Paiva and Champagne.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:46 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you estimate the distance between the bird shape objects for us? (Yes this is a trap)
sfseaserpent wrote:The black objects that we claim are portions of one animal that you claim are birds flying in a straight line formation are not bird shaped.
Answer the question. What is the distance between the objects. Stop dodging like a coward.
Sea monster curve 1.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:53 am

Thanks for that answer, boys, but it leads me directly to another question - why did you choose Jan Sundberg? I think I know why, but you should be allowed the opportunity to explain.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 1:59 am

sfseaserpent wrote: We don't care that you or other scientists say it's impossible for a marine animal to move in the manner we described.
sfseaserpent wrote: With vertical undulations in its upper body and a horizontal tail that moves up and down similar to the way a whale's tail propels a whale through the water.
A whale has a horizontal flat tail of 4.5 metres width. Can you show us your hoax sea monster's tail moving water, in your video, like a whale? Why is the water calm in your video where the tail should be?
Whale tail.jpg
sfseaserpent wrote:You and your fellow scientists tell the animal we saw that it's impossible for it to swim in the manner we described.
If the coils simply move up and down the hoax creature would simply bob up and down. You haven't explained how your hoax creature propels itself forward. You can't because it's a flaw in your hoax.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:04 am

Cobalt6 wrote: The Clark Twins are having us all on . Refer to my previous post. I highlighted a previous statement of the Clark's in red, where it is admitted they're doing this for (quote) ''cheap entertainment''.
I'm not interested in the Clark Twin's hoax. I'm using them to lure Clifford Paiva here. The Clark twins hoax is just a form of light entertainment while we are waiting. Clifford and the Creation Institute are the targets.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:19 am

sfseaserpent wrote: Jan then told us that Paiva was very critical of photos and videos of sea serpents and unless there was something substantial in the video Paiva probably wouldn't analyze our video.
Meanwhile Clifford Paiva uses a 1973 film prop photo as his evidence that pterodactyls still live on his own website at BSMRA. :D
Clifford's photo.jpg
sfseaserpent wrote: A few weeks later we got a phone call from Paiva and he said "You got it!" then he asked us if we would allow him to do an in-depth analysis of our video.
This is odd considering there are many other film prop sea monsters that Clifford could use on his website.
Giant snail.jpg
sfseaserpent wrote:Of course we said "yes".
Of course you did! Only Clifford could fake pterodactyls and sea serpents to the low levels you were hoping for.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Daedalus » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:21 am

Poodle wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Poodle wrote:Bill'nBob - a serious question.

You won't show us your evidence so we, as skeptics, won't believe you - it's only a verbal report. Of course, you know what a skeptic is, so you can hardly be surprised.

So given that, what are you doing here?
Getting the attention that he clearly wants/needs. The alternative is that he's insane.
Well yes - that's certainly how it appears. I just find it odd that they come to this forum which has at least two members eminently qualified to examine their video evidence (in fact, one of them offered to do it at a very early point in this thread)..

They'd be ignored in most other locales, banned from the rest, but here they're safe to do this for years and years while lapping up the attention.

Since they clearly are willing and able to fool themselves into thinking they're fighting some kind of good fight here, maybe that appeals to them as well.

Frankly, as much as I like this forum, it's extremely open policies combined with a deep willingness to engage almost anyone makes it a prime target for whackos, attention whores, trolls, and the good old fashioned mentally ill.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:24 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Watch Bob & Bill avoid answering questions
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you explain how a creature with a 26" diameter body can bend at more than 90%? How does it propel itself?
sfseaserpent today wrote:Do they use a different type of English in Australia?
Yes. We use English. You use American which has a different spelling regime. Didn't you know this?
It's not the different type of spelling that you Aussies use. It's you're inability to comprehend what we are saying to you in American English.
Matthew Ellard wrote:
sfseaserpent today wrote:We said using your BS formula and 80 feet instead of 175 feet the diameter of the animal would be closer to 26" than 13".
A 26" diameter sea serpent can't bend at 90%. Why are you avoiding this question?
sfseaserpent today wrote: How does it bend itself at more than 90%? It's upper body is flexible enough to do that.
That is not an answer. Here is a 12" diameter tube. Are you pretending that a 26" diameter sea monster, twice this size can bend at 90 degrees?
As we just explained in American English to you, we didn't say the diameter was 26". We said the result of using 80 feet instead of 175 feet inyour formula the result of what the diameter would be is closer to 26" than 13".

We don't know what the actual diameter of the upper portion of the animal we saw FROM ONLY 20 YARD AWAY was but we can estimate what it was.

Whatever the actual diameter of the upper portion of the animal was, we saw the animal fold its upper portion in the manner we described and as was depicted in Bob's drawing which was posted earlier in this thread by a member of this site.

It probably doesn't pinch itself when it bends like we described like the tube you showed would because the animal has a spinal column.

Matthew Ellard wrote:
thumbs_12inch-diameter-hose-3.jpg
and not do this?
Bent garden hose.jpg
.
sfseaserpent today wrote:How does it propel itself? With vertical undulations in its upper body and a horizontal tail that moves up and down similar to the way a whale's tail propels a whale through the water.
If the creature is bent at the middle at 90 degrees then it it is pushing in two different directions.


We never claimed the animal bent ninety degrees in the middle. We said it did that in the upper portion of its body not its midsection.

Matthew Ellard wrote: You hoax sea monster moves in yet another direction in your video. Secondly the undulation do not go "up and down" as that would make the creature bob up and down.


The animal we saw did undulate vertically and it didn't "bob up and down".

Matthew Ellard wrote: The horizontal coils move backwards along the body of a sea snake to push backwards against the water. Didn't you know this?


This animal isn't a sea snake. It undulates vertically and they do move backwards against the water.

However, most of the time the animal is completely under the water.

Matthew Ellard wrote:Why aren't the coils moving backwards in any of your videos?
The coils are moving backwards in several segments of our video.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Why did you rum away from answering this question? What is the distance between the bird like objects in your video?
Sea monster curve 1.JPG
There are no bird-like features in the black objects that we claim are part of the large unknown serpentine marine animals that are in our video.

You figure out the distance between the black objects in our video.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Daedalus » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:32 am

So... you ARE just going to pretend that Paiva isn't a lunatic and a fraud? Good to know... :lol:
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:00 am

Watch Bob & Bill avoid answering questions
Matthew Ellard wrote:Can you explain how a creature with a 26" diameter body can bend at more than 90%? How does it propel itself?
sfseaserpent today wrote: It probably doesn't pinch itself when it bends like we described like the tube you showed would because the animal has a spinal column.
So it can't turn 90 degrees and therefore your photo must be of a "V" shaped flock of birds. Thanks for agreeing with me.
sfseaserpent today wrote:We never claimed the animal bent ninety degrees in the middle. We said it did that in the upper portion of its body not its midsection.
Look at your own photo. The 90 degree bend is in the middle of the flock.
Birds curve.JPG
sfseaserpent today wrote: The animal we saw did undulate vertically and it didn't "bob up and down".
Bill. "Undulations" don't move vertically. They move backwards. The backwards motion occurs along a plane which is horizontal in sea snakes. If it was vertical, the coils would move backwards. The coils do not move backwards in your video. Please explain how the hoax creature moves?

"In animals that move without use of limbs, the most common feature of the locomotion is a rostral to caudal wave that travels down their body"

Matthew Ellard wrote:Why aren't the coils moving backwards in any of your videos?
sfseaserpent today wrote: The coils are moving backwards in several segments of our video.
They are neither moving backwards nor moving up and down. You are lying. Look at your own video from 43.5mins. It is clearly birds. In what frame do you claim the coils move backwards to its movement?
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matthew Ellard wrote:Why did you run away from answering this question? What is the distance between the bird like objects in your video?
sfseaserpent today wrote:You figure out the distance between the black objects in our video.
I have. It's under a metre. As you know your hoax sea serpent cannot bend in anyway to match the shapes in your video. That's why you are running away.
Sea monster curve 1.JPG
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by JO 753 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:32 am

OK OK OK! NOW I GOT IT!

They get paid for every post here. Its an advertizing thing like wen the secretary uv state (Dave Herman) got paid wenevr he sed "Eat at Carlz Jr.".

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 14462
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by JO 753 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:38 am


User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:33 am

Classic stuff now - the animal doesn't kink when it bends sharply at 90 degrees because it has a spinal column. I mean - {!#%@} physics. I'm going to make a fortune when I show the country's pipe layers that they don't need those fancy bits to make bends. Just bend the straight bits, lads, and sell the other stuff on the quiet. I'll have 10% thank you. It's a good job that the pipes don't have those impenetrable locked-at-the-edges scales, though. That might make the whole thing a bit more difficult.

And what a motive unit this thing has! Two pushers operating at right angles and the resultant motion is in which direction? Hey - more magic. Sod the parallelogram of forces - there are dark forces at work here!

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:26 pm

Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims. I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.

Jan-Ove Sundberg, a long-standing cryptozoologist, is the man who set up GUST (Global Underwater Search Team) to search for sea and lake monsters. So far, he's operated in Sweden, Norway, Scotland and Ireland. Some way to go to reach "global", then. He's done this stuff for years and years, and here are his own comments on his one and only sighting ...

"What you can see in the 20 sec long, digital video footage is a 1,5 meters long sea serpent. A baby serpent, perhaps. It swims at a certain pace, in the opposite direction of our search boat, for 15 seconds and vanishes straight down in another 5. It’s black in the strong sun and no details are visible.

A rare atmospherical phenomenon is glued to the serpent! This mirage creates a false serpent in the air above the real one, on the surface of the water. Between the two are a heat haze, making it both difficult to see what the whole thing is and what to make of it. No one likes the interference of the mirage, except the meteorologist’s at the Swedish Weather Bureau, who never heard that anyone else has been able to record such an unusual weather phenomenon."

One and a half metres! Must be a sea monster, especially with the way it can manipulate the air above it.

Anyway, so you chose this man who is never going to say "BS" to you because you knew that if you sent your material to any genuine academic you'd be made a fool of. But even Jan passed on your sighting (because his "global" organisation couldn't afford a trip to the US) but gave you the name of Clifford Paiva, a complete joke in real academic circles who proudly displays a CV that a 5-year old could see straight through. And you didn't even bother to check Paiva out. You were presented as a package to a shyster. You fell for it, just as easily as you fell for the unsolicited approach of Mr. Bubbly.

So let's see - here are the possible situations ...

a) You are genuine in your beliefs, but not very sharp in the brain department.
b) You are actively part and parcel of a dishonest scheme.
c) You are naive fools - puppets whose strings are being pulled by others for their own ends.

I know which one of those is closest to the truth. You, apparently, wouldn't recognise the truth if it was standing in front of you waving polka-dot bananas.

DISCLAIMER: The term "polka-dot bananas" is an exaggerated invention solely for use in fantasy land. The term is not meant to be taken literally, and any attempt to do so will be met with the bad-tempered tantrums of the copyright owners.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:43 pm

Poodle wrote:Classic stuff now
Well yes. I'd like to say in clear words what I think is going on. The Clark twins are idiots promoting a a "B" grade hoax concerning sea monsters for self angradisement. They are insignificant. Larger creationist groups picked on their hoax as a "background chatter" to allude that there was some significance to two simpletons who think living dinosaurs still exist. Paiva and the Creation Institute are exploiters of idiots. We are simply watching a small creationist faction manipulate two "bong heads" with IQs of 80 who will fight to the end to hide their stupidity. All following posts will be text book examples of the Clark twins avoiding answering direct questions. . .

I'm simply waiting for the Clark twin clowns to step aside when Clifford Paiva has to defend the BSMRA and himself, for supporting their hoax.

"Why talk to the {!#%@} when you can talk to the person holding the shovel"

.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 12:49 pm

And I'm in complete agreement with you, Matthew. However, after the complete destruction (several times over) of the twins' story on here, I think that we will see absolutely nothing of Paiva. He may, in fact, choose to remove himself from the sad and sorry situation by deciding that it is he, the poor misunderstood man, who has been taken in by the Clarks.

It will be fascinating to watch either way.

User avatar
Cobalt6
BANNED
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Cobalt6 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 2:53 pm

JO 753 wrote:OK OK OK! NOW I GOT IT!

They get paid for every post here. Its an advertizing thing like wen the secretary uv state (Dave Herman) got paid wenevr he sed "Eat at Carlz Jr.".
Good theory, they are also doing it for kicks as well, as they admitted to me when I asked why they were even participating on this forum:
Cobalt6 wrote:
If you think you're right why did you come here?

sfseaserpent wrote:
For the same reason a cat plays with a mouse before it eats the mouse.
Cheap entertainment.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:10 pm

Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:20 pm

Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims. I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.

Jan-Ove Sundberg, a long-standing cryptozoologist, is the man who set up GUST (Global Underwater Search Team) to search for sea and lake monsters. So far, he's operated in Sweden, Norway, Scotland and Ireland. Some way to go to reach "global", then. He's done this stuff for years and years, and here are his own comments on his one and only sighting ...

"What you can see in the 20 sec long, digital video footage is a 1,5 meters long sea serpent. A baby serpent, perhaps. It swims at a certain pace, in the opposite direction of our search boat, for 15 seconds and vanishes straight down in another 5. It’s black in the strong sun and no details are visible.

A rare atmospherical phenomenon is glued to the serpent! This mirage creates a false serpent in the air above the real one, on the surface of the water. Between the two are a heat haze, making it both difficult to see what the whole thing is and what to make of it. No one likes the interference of the mirage, except the meteorologist’s at the Swedish Weather Bureau, who never heard that anyone else has been able to record such an unusual weather phenomenon."

One and a half metres! Must be a sea monster, especially with the way it can manipulate the air above it.

Anyway, so you chose this man who is never going to say "BS" to you because you knew that if you sent your material to any genuine academic you'd be made a fool of. But even Jan passed on your sighting (because his "global" organisation couldn't afford a trip to the US) but gave you the name of Clifford Paiva, a complete joke in real academic circles who proudly displays a CV that a 5-year old could see straight through. And you didn't even bother to check Paiva out. You were presented as a package to a shyster. You fell for it, just as easily as you fell for the unsolicited approach of Mr. Bubbly.

So let's see - here are the possible situations ...

a) You are genuine in your beliefs, but not very sharp in the brain department.
b) You are actively part and parcel of a dishonest scheme.
c) You are naive fools - puppets whose strings are being pulled by others for their own ends.

I know which one of those is closest to the truth. You, apparently, wouldn't recognise the truth if it was standing in front of you waving polka-dot bananas.

DISCLAIMER: The term "polka-dot bananas" is an exaggerated invention solely for use in fantasy land. The term is not meant to be taken literally, and any attempt to do so will be met with the bad-tempered tantrums of the copyright owners.
The sea serpent we saw FROM ONLY 20 YARDS AWAY wasn't waving polka-dot bananas. It was chasing a sea lion.

You obviously haven't read our entire blog or you would KNOW that Jan Sundberg hates us and Clifford Paiva because we are Americans and we have Jan Sundberg's emails he sent to us to prove it.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:28 pm

Poodle wrote:Classic stuff now - the animal doesn't kink when it bends sharply at 90 degrees because it has a spinal column.
We're not claiming the animal we saw during our first sighting bent its upper body 90 degrees. We're claiming the animal we saw during our first sighting bent its upper body 180 degrees as depicted in Bob's drawing that one of you guys posted on this thread.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:39 pm

Poodle wrote:\I just find it odd that they come to this forum which has at least two members eminently qualified to examine their video evidence (in fact, one of them offered to do it at a very early point in this thread)..
What is the name of the one eminently qualified member of this site that you claim offered to examine our video evidence?
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Daedalus » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:51 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:
Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
No offense, but I don't believe a word you say now.

You're a shitty liiiiiaaaar... and hoooooaaaxxxxeeerrrr...
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Cobalt6
BANNED
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Cobalt6 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 3:53 pm

Daedalus wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote:
Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
No offense, but I don't believe a word you say now.

You're a shitty liiiiiaaaar... and hoooooaaaxxxxeeerrrr...
This has been proven with sfseaserpent's direct comment which states they are all in this for ''cheap entertainment''.

The Clark Twins are admitted trolls.
I see no reason why this thread should go on. They get kicks out of us posting here.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re:

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:11 pm

Pyrrho wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote: 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]
This was Pyrrho's response (post #15) to your invitation (post #14) to provide an expert of our choice.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:25 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:Bill & Bob pretend to forget again
sfseaserpent wrote: Is that the only relevant mistake in Paiva's report that you could find?
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. I found quite a few. I have already mentioned them in this post.
sfseaserpent wrote:Really? We must have missed them. Point them out to us.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have already. You ran away. Let's start with this one...again....for the fifth time
"Vertical oscillation is common to sea snakes" (2005 Revised paper)
Matthew Ellard wrote: Can you now name one sea snake that uses vertical oscillation? (You ran away last time before answering).
sfseaserpent today wrote: You may have meant to post that you already mentioned them in this thread but you posted that you "already mentioned them in this post".
Is that your quaint way of saying you now remember Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes" error?
No.That's our way of pointing out to you that you said you mentioned them in your POST not THREAD and you didn't mention them in your POST.
Matthew Ellard wrote:We pointed it out to you six times that it was in the revised 2005 report. You said you couldn't find it six times before you found it remember?
You claimed YOU posted 5 times that you mentioned the page number where the sentence was. We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU did that.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You are now pretending you forgot Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes"claim, yet again.
Nope. That's just more of your BS.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Evidence Bill is forgetting on purpose
sfseaserpent wrote:If we are wrong you should be able to point out exactly where it is in Paiva's revised report
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:After you point out exactly where in Paiva's revised report he made the quote you claim he said about sea snakes using vertical oscillations then we'll be glad to discuss whether Paiva shouldn't have used the word, "oscillation".
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:No, we don't know that because Paiva didn't say anything about sea snakes in his revised report. Point out exactly where he does.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:We read Paiva's revised report 3 times trying to find the quote that you said Paiva made in it about sea snakes using vertical oscillations. We couldn't find it.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:You're continuing to state the same lie. Nowhere in Paiva's revised report does he make the statement you quoted
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote: You're correct. We're wrong. That statement is on page 3 of the revised report. We missed it.
We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU posted the page number five times where Paiva made that staement about sea snakes in his revised report.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:30 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:You obviously haven't read our entire blog or you would KNOW that Jan Sundberg hates us and Clifford Paiva because we are Americans and we have Jan Sundberg's emails he sent to us to prove it.
Oh, I certainly read your entire blog. That you and Sundberg fell out, amusing though that is, is neither here nor there as it came after your initial contact. You contacted Sundberg, Sundberg put you on to Paiva.

But now that you mention it, why do you think Sundberg turned on you, boys? A fellow believer, and he accused you of making it all up? Gosh, I'm as surprised as a snail on barbiturates.

Oh - and I'm counting the days until Clifford Paiva does exactly the same thing. It's bound to happen, boys.

User avatar
Cobalt6
BANNED
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Cobalt6 » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:34 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Bill & Bob pretend to forget again
sfseaserpent wrote: Is that the only relevant mistake in Paiva's report that you could find?
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. I found quite a few. I have already mentioned them in this post.
sfseaserpent wrote:Really? We must have missed them. Point them out to us.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have already. You ran away. Let's start with this one...again....for the fifth time
"Vertical oscillation is common to sea snakes" (2005 Revised paper)
Matthew Ellard wrote: Can you now name one sea snake that uses vertical oscillation? (You ran away last time before answering).
sfseaserpent today wrote: You may have meant to post that you already mentioned them in this thread but you posted that you "already mentioned them in this post".
Is that your quaint way of saying you now remember Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes" error?
No.That's our way of pointing out to you that you said you mentioned them in your POST not THREAD and you didn't mention them in your POST.
Matthew Ellard wrote:We pointed it out to you six times that it was in the revised 2005 report. You said you couldn't find it six times before you found it remember?
You claimed YOU posted 5 times that you mentioned the page number where the sentence was. We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU did that.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You are now pretending you forgot Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes"claim, yet again.
Nope. That's just more of your BS.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Evidence Bill is forgetting on purpose
sfseaserpent wrote:If we are wrong you should be able to point out exactly where it is in Paiva's revised report
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:After you point out exactly where in Paiva's revised report he made the quote you claim he said about sea snakes using vertical oscillations then we'll be glad to discuss whether Paiva shouldn't have used the word, "oscillation".
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:No, we don't know that because Paiva didn't say anything about sea snakes in his revised report. Point out exactly where he does.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:We read Paiva's revised report 3 times trying to find the quote that you said Paiva made in it about sea snakes using vertical oscillations. We couldn't find it.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:You're continuing to state the same lie. Nowhere in Paiva's revised report does he make the statement you quoted
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote: You're correct. We're wrong. That statement is on page 3 of the revised report. We missed it.
We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU posted the page number five times where Paiva made that staement about sea snakes in his revised report.
You're a dedicated troll, I shall give you that.
Back again with more nit-picking that offers no movement in the actual subject as a whole, and still no groundbreaking video footage being uploaded that you claim to have in your position. Why haven't even stills from your new video been uploaded onto your site?

Instead you're acting childish by being pointed out with flaws.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Re:

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:49 pm

Poodle wrote:
Pyrrho wrote: 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]
Poodle wrote:This was Pyrrho's response (post #15) to your invitation (post #14) to provide an expert of our choice.
This was Pyrrho's response (post #15) to your invitation (post #14) to provide an expert of our choice.
Pyrrho was responding to this post.

sfseaserpent wrote: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?

Pyrrho wasn't offering to analyze our video. He was dissing our video before he even saw our entire video.
Last edited by sfseaserpent on Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34656
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Gord » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:51 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:What is the name of the one eminently qualified member of this site that you claim offered to examine our video evidence?
That would be every single one of us. We're all eminently qualified site members, and we've all told you to put your evidence up for examination.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Poodle
True Skeptic
Posts: 10683
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Post-bloom
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Poodle » Thu Oct 31, 2013 4:53 pm

Your imagination exceeds your eyesight. That was Pyrrho's first post in this thread. Was he dissing your video telepathically?

User avatar
busterggi
Regular Poster
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:36 pm
Custom Title: General Weirdness
Location: New Britain, CT

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by busterggi » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:04 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Bill & Bob pretend to forget again
sfseaserpent wrote: Is that the only relevant mistake in Paiva's report that you could find?
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. I found quite a few. I have already mentioned them in this post.
sfseaserpent wrote:Really? We must have missed them. Point them out to us.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have already. You ran away. Let's start with this one...again....for the fifth time
"Vertical oscillation is common to sea snakes" (2005 Revised paper)
Matthew Ellard wrote: Can you now name one sea snake that uses vertical oscillation? (You ran away last time before answering).
sfseaserpent today wrote: You may have meant to post that you already mentioned them in this thread but you posted that you "already mentioned them in this post".
Is that your quaint way of saying you now remember Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes" error?
No.That's our way of pointing out to you that you said you mentioned them in your POST not THREAD and you didn't mention them in your POST.
Matthew Ellard wrote:We pointed it out to you six times that it was in the revised 2005 report. You said you couldn't find it six times before you found it remember?
You claimed YOU posted 5 times that you mentioned the page number where the sentence was. We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU did that.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You are now pretending you forgot Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes"claim, yet again.
Nope. That's just more of your BS.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Evidence Bill is forgetting on purpose
sfseaserpent wrote:If we are wrong you should be able to point out exactly where it is in Paiva's revised report
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:After you point out exactly where in Paiva's revised report he made the quote you claim he said about sea snakes using vertical oscillations then we'll be glad to discuss whether Paiva shouldn't have used the word, "oscillation".
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:No, we don't know that because Paiva didn't say anything about sea snakes in his revised report. Point out exactly where he does.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:We read Paiva's revised report 3 times trying to find the quote that you said Paiva made in it about sea snakes using vertical oscillations. We couldn't find it.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:You're continuing to state the same lie. Nowhere in Paiva's revised report does he make the statement you quoted
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote: You're correct. We're wrong. That statement is on page 3 of the revised report. We missed it.
We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU posted the page number five times where Paiva made that staement about sea snakes in his revised report.
Why? What would the post #'s mean? Heck, you've quoted him at least five times - use your own post #'s, they contain his quote.

Or are you going to use 'bible codes' & numerology now as 'evidence'? Cross referencing the first letter in every sixteen posts spells the truth in Reptoid maybe?

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:14 pm

Cobalt6 wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Bill & Bob pretend to forget again
sfseaserpent wrote: Is that the only relevant mistake in Paiva's report that you could find?
Matthew Ellard wrote:No. I found quite a few. I have already mentioned them in this post.
sfseaserpent wrote:Really? We must have missed them. Point them out to us.
Matthew Ellard wrote: I have already. You ran away. Let's start with this one...again....for the fifth time
"Vertical oscillation is common to sea snakes" (2005 Revised paper)
Matthew Ellard wrote: Can you now name one sea snake that uses vertical oscillation? (You ran away last time before answering).
sfseaserpent today wrote: You may have meant to post that you already mentioned them in this thread but you posted that you "already mentioned them in this post".
Is that your quaint way of saying you now remember Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes" error?
No.That's our way of pointing out to you that you said you mentioned them in your POST not THREAD and you didn't mention them in your POST.
Matthew Ellard wrote:We pointed it out to you six times that it was in the revised 2005 report. You said you couldn't find it six times before you found it remember?
You claimed YOU posted 5 times that you mentioned the page number where the sentence was. We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU did that.
Matthew Ellard wrote:You are now pretending you forgot Paiva's "vertical oscillating sea snakes"claim, yet again.
Nope. That's just more of your BS.
Matthew Ellard wrote:Evidence Bill is forgetting on purpose
sfseaserpent wrote:If we are wrong you should be able to point out exactly where it is in Paiva's revised report
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:After you point out exactly where in Paiva's revised report he made the quote you claim he said about sea snakes using vertical oscillations then we'll be glad to discuss whether Paiva shouldn't have used the word, "oscillation".
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:No, we don't know that because Paiva didn't say anything about sea snakes in his revised report. Point out exactly where he does.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:We read Paiva's revised report 3 times trying to find the quote that you said Paiva made in it about sea snakes using vertical oscillations. We couldn't find it.
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote:You're continuing to state the same lie. Nowhere in Paiva's revised report does he make the statement you quoted
Matthew Ellard wrote:The last paragraph on page 3
sfseaserpent wrote: You're correct. We're wrong. That statement is on page 3 of the revised report. We missed it.
We're still waiting for you to post the post numbers where YOU posted the page number five times where Paiva made that staement about sea snakes in his revised report.
You're a dedicated troll, I shall give you that.
Back again with more nit-picking that offers no movement in the actual subject as a whole, and still no groundbreaking video footage being uploaded that you claim to have in your position. Why haven't even stills from your new video been uploaded onto your site?

Instead you're acting childish by being pointed out with flaws.
You guys are lousy liars. Post the post numbers where Matthew posted the response five times "The last paragraph on page 3" in response to our posts.

The last post of ours where you quote us saying "You're correct. We're wrong. That statement is on page 3 of the revised report. We missed it[" was in response to Poodles post where he said it was on page 3 of Paiva's report not to Matthews post saying ti was on page 3 of Paiva's report.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Daedalus » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:18 pm

Cobalt6 wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote:
Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
No offense, but I don't believe a word you say now.

You're a shitty liiiiiaaaar... and hoooooaaaxxxxeeerrrr...
This has been proven with sfseaserpent's direct comment which states they are all in this for ''cheap entertainment''.

The Clark Twins are admitted trolls.
I see no reason why this thread should go on. They get kicks out of us posting here.
Yeah, this has been entertaining, but I think I'm done with it for now.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:29 pm

Poodle wrote:Your imagination exceeds your eyesight. That was Pyrrho's first post in this thread. Was he dissing your video telepathically?
Apparently he was because there is nothing in Pyrrho's post offering to analyze our video.

in fact later in his post Pyrrho says
Pyrrho wrote:
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.
We would never send our video to someone who is so biased they would claim there is not enough data in our video to claim the video contains images of a sea serpent before they even view our entire video. Therefore, you can count that "expert" of yours out.
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

sfseaserpent
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1989
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: San Francisco, Ca

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by sfseaserpent » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:37 pm

Daedalus wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote:
Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
No offense, but I don't believe a word you say now.

You're a shitty liiiiiaaaar... and hoooooaaaxxxxeeerrrr...
We have the emails to GUST and Jan Sundberg that prove we are telling the truth about how we met Jan Sunburg.

How do you claim we met Jan Sundberg if not through GUST?
"There cannot be the slightest doubt that you have had the chance sighting of an animal obviously unknown to science." ---Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans-- August 8, 1985

A skeptic is someone who sees the handwriting on the wall and claims it's a forgery.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5475
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Sea Serpents in San Francisco Bay!

Post by Daedalus » Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:40 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
sfseaserpent wrote:
Poodle wrote:Well, boys, it doesn't look like you're going to answer my question about why you chose Jan Sundberg as the recipient of your original claims.


I'm not surprised - you intentionally chose someone who would be nothing but enthusiastic about your story.
Isn't master going to let us boys have some time to sleep or is this your enhanced interrogation technique?

We picked GUST after we found them on the internet. You know Global Underwater Search Team searching for proof of large unknown marine animals.

So we contacted GUST by email and that's how we met Jan Sundberg.
No offense, but I don't believe a word you say now.

You're a shitty liiiiiaaaar... and hoooooaaaxxxxeeerrrr...
We have the emails to GUST and Jan Sundberg that prove we are telling the truth about how we met Jan Sunburg.

How do you claim we met Jan Sundberg if not through GUST?
At this point I just assume that literally everything you post is either mistaken, or an outright lie. I suspect that's true for everyone here...

Anyway... l8r Shmucky/Bob, I'll stop by to post more audio bits of you and the puppet, but beyond that this has gotten dull.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)