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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:49 am

Crotalus wrote:
Pyrrho wrote:Peer review:

The SF Seaweed Sea Serpent

Disclaimer: the article is full of ad-hominem arguments. The seaweed hypothesis is quite compelling, though.


That is quite an enlightening aritcle....thank you.


Thank you for bring GUST and Jan Sundberg into the discussion since it was Jan who asked us to have his "expert image analyst", Clifford Paiva, examine our video before he would reach any conclusion about our video. He was the one who told us not to expect Paiva to do an analysis of our video unless there was something substantial in it because Paiva was very critical of photos and videos claimed to contain images of sea serpents. When Paiva told Jan that our video did contain images of several sea serpents Jan disagreed with his own "expert image analyst" and published that article just before Paiva released his report. Champagne, Paiva and Slusher demolish Sundberg's seaweed theory in their analyses. Didn't you read that part of Champagne's analysis, Crotalus?

User avatar
Beleth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: yo mammas puddin

Post by Beleth » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:27 am

Thank you for confirming everything I said about you, sfseaserpent.

Your kind are a dime a dozen around these parts. It doesn't matter what your claim is. It really, really doesn't. You try to come in here and rewrite the rules of good, solid science, and you eventually get frustrated and leave when you realize that we won't let you.

Now, I'll sit back and watch my predictions unfold as they have countless times before. Been nice talking to you.



Oh, and don't think that I didn't notice how you didn't type my full name out in your latest reply to me. I believe I know why, and it amuses me.
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:40 am

B said "Oh, and don't think that I didn't notice how you didn't type my full name out in your latest reply to me. I believe I know why, and it amuses me."

Oh great omniscient one. Please reveal to us mere mortals why we only used the letter "B" to refer to you.

User avatar
Crotalus
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: Southwestern Illinois

Post by Crotalus » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:51 am

Demolish? I don't think so. First off, as I stated before, Champagne's credibility as an expert is nil in my book. But as entertainment, let's look at what he said:

"The author suggests that it is unlikely that the images recorded on this
Clark video are of floating kelp masses."


UNLIKELY.....that hardly equals demolish.

The Clarks have spoken with the area harbormaster, who also confirmed that kelp is
rarely observed in the bay, and does not grow in the area proximate to the recorded
observation (Clark, 2005b).


Well if the harbormaster says it's so I guess it is so. Give me a break. Your so hung up on experts...is the harbormaster an expert in marine life?

I think what Champagne misses is the possible combination of factors. He rules things out one by one, but does not explore the possibilty of a combination of things. Kelp beds are going to attract wildlife. Mix kelp with seals/whales/whatever and you have a dynamic situation that can't be ruled out by looking at species one at a time as Champagne does.

Also, Champagne only skims over whale behavior and leaves out way to much to be considered an expert on the subject. He completely misses the idea of pectoral fin (12+ft) waving by whales that could explain your mysterious "head". By his own references, Champagne gets his whale info from some 1962! research on gray whales and the Audobon Field Guide to whales.....wow that is some expert you have there. By that reasoning I'm an expert in Fossils because I have the field guide to them.

Champagne in no way clearly demonstrates that what he sees is a sea serpent.

But it doesn't matter....you have your position and it will not change. That is why you are not even in the realm of science. If you were concerned with science you would accept the fact that your "theory" could be wrong....but you will never do that. You would lay it out for all to see in a peer reviewed article instead of making everyone jump through hoops to get the needed data.

User avatar
Beleth
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:54 pm
Location: yo mammas puddin

Post by Beleth » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:54 am

Oh great omniscient one. Please reveal to us mere mortals why we only used the letter "B" to refer to you.


Pick an etymology "expert" from your team, have him send me an e-mail, and I will send him the answer to your question.

:roll:


Been nice talking to you.
"Beleth thinks with beauty."
-- brainfart

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:24 am

B said "Pick an etymology 'expert' from your team, have him send me an e-mail, and I will send him the answer to your question."

Sorry but we don't have an etymology "expert" on our team. We only have "experts" in marine biology, zoology. image analysis and physics on our team but you already know that since you are the great omniscient one.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:24 am

Crotalus said "Demolish? I don't think so. First off, as I stated before, Champagne's credibility as an expert is nil in my book. But as entertainment, let's look at what he said:

"The author suggests that it is unlikely that the images recorded on this
Clark video are of floating kelp masses."


UNLIKELY.....that hardly equals demolish.

The Clarks have spoken with the area harbormaster, who also confirmed that kelp is
rarely observed in the bay, and does not grow in the area proximate to the recorded
observation (Clark, 2005b).


Well if the harbormaster says it's so I guess it is so. Give me a break. Your so hung up on experts...is the harbormaster an expert in marine life?"

Didn't you leave out a little bit of Champagne's explaination why it couldn't be seaweed? He also said "It is assumed the 'sea weed' suggestion is a comparision of the images made to the perennial giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera). Giant Kelp is known to grow up 40 centimeters per day, reaching a height of approximately 60 m. along the exposed coast of Alaska to California (McConnaughey, 1988). This gold yo brown macro algae projects hundreds of leaf-like blades and rounded hollow bladders from the flexible stipe. An individual kelp plant is fastened to the bottom of the sea floor by a rhizome-like base, or holdfast. The stationary, individual plant then maintains a nearly vertical orientation, utilizing the hollow bladders as floats to maintain position.

The Clarks have spoken with the area harbormaster, who also confirmed that kelp is rarely observed in the bay, and does not grow in the area proximate to the recorded observation. (Clark, 2005b). It could be expected that kelp torn from its base by storms and/or wave action, may occasionally drift into the bay as "rafts" with tidal, wind or wave movements. Additionally, a commerical herring (Clopea mirabilis) eggs-on-kelp fisher (HEOK) may be present in the bay from December 01 through March 31 as suspended raft6s of kelp (California Department of Fish & Game). Another macro-algae candidate could include the Bull Kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana), which is known to grow to 30 m. in length, and also grows float-like bladders, and may be considered similarly.

Floating kelp rafts can be observable from an above-surface position, but could not extend above the air/water interface with a discernable height at the estimated distance of the Clark observation. The images in the Clark. January 26, 2004 video recording exteed and descend intermittently above the surface, and at a height of approximately 8 m. (Paiva and Slusher, 2005). The flexible stipe does not provide sufficient structural support for extension to the degree required for visibility at the reported distance(s). Additionally, the images in the Clark video move at 8 km/hr. (Paiva and Slusher, 2005) against the 2.0-2.1 knot current (Tide/Current Predictor), and reverse direction, even moving over a second image maintaining position or engaged in a different direction of travel. The images in the video do not move uniformly, or in a direction or manner consistent with known currents or water movements on that day (USGS). Observable water displacement is also not consistent with the suggestion of floating, or even anchored kelp. The author suggests that it is unlikely that the images recorded on this Clark video are of floating kelp masses."

That's quite a bit more then what you claimed Champagne stated.

Crotalus said "I think what Champagne misses is the possible combination of factors. He rules things out one by one, but does not explore the possibilty of a combination of things. Kelp beds are going to attract wildlife. Mix kelp with seals/whales/whatever and you have a dynamic situation that can't be ruled out by looking at species one at a time as Champagne does."

He disagrees with you. Since he eliminated all of them for various reasons the objects in our video can't be a combination of any of them.

Crotalus said "Also, Champagne only skims over whale behavior and leaves out way to much to be considered an expert on the subject."

Let's see what he said about whales. He said "Cetaceans are also known to enter the San Francisco Bay. Most frequently observed are Gray Whales (Eschrichtius robustus) and Harbor Porpoises (Phocoena phocoena). Less frequently observed are Pacific White-sided Dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) and the Dalls' Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli). Occasionally, Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) have entered the bay and associated waterways.

The largest measured images in the Clark video are within the known ranges of both Gray and Humpback Whales. Whales are alsoknown to breach the surface at a height comparable to that measured by the animals in the video. However, the animals in the Clark video maintain an extended position above the surface for approximately 2.5 sec., and continue to maintain a lower position above the surface without submerging below the air/water interface. The periscope behavior exhibited by the images on the video is likely a deliberate and controlled behavior which appears to be in excess of the known capabilities of larger cetaceans as they are unable to control their mass from falling below the air/water interface after breaching. Additionally, if the track line segments in the video are considered only visible parts of one unit for inclusion within the known size ranges of the larger cetaceans, the flexibility exhibited by the images in the Clark video do not appear to be within the range of flexure of either species of whale. If the image segments are considered independent animals, the grouping would be inconsistent with known mysticete group behavior relevant to this sequence (Walker, 1962). The "spyhopping" behavior displayed by some whale species may produce a similar appearance as that of the images in the video. However, the "spyhopping" behavior is a stationary surface display and is not consistent with the movement displayed by the images in the video. Exhalations, or "blows," could be identified at the distances involved in the video (Personal Observation), but these predictable and lingering exhalations are not observed in the video, as would be expected.

The smallest segments of the recorded images are within the known size ranges of both the Pacific White-sided Dolphin and Dall's Porpoise. However, the swimming motions and behaviors, both individually and grouped, are not consistent with the known behaviors of either species. Because the behaviors and capabilities of the Clark video images are not consistent with the known abilities and/or behaviors of cetacean species frequenting the area, it is proposed that the video images are not those of a known cetacean."

Crotalus said "He completely misses the idea of pectoral fin (12+ft) waving by whales that could explain your mysterious 'head'."

Once you see the video you will understand better why a pectoral fin couldn't explain the look or behavior of the animal in our video. Besides, Champagne explained why it couldn't be any known whale that frequents the SF Bay area.

Crotalus said "Champagne in no way clearly demonstrates that what he sees is a sea serpent."

Then why does he say "The captured images appear to be large, unidentified marine animals displaying multiple behaviors and movements at the water surface, in an area proximate to the Angel and Alcatraz islands in San Francisco Bay, and at an approximate distance of 3 km. The unidentified, serpentine animals appear to occupy a general position approximately 2 km from the southwest shores of Angel Island." He also says "The author suggests that the objects in the Clark's January 26, 2004 video are not images of known species or phenomena, or a designed hoax. It is proposed that the images in the video may be an animal the author has labeled the Type lll, or Multiple Humped, animal. This, yet as scientifically undescribed animal was proposed by the author after a review of over 1200 independent observations with an accompanying method for rating accuracy and veracity (2005).

The Type lll Animal attains a maximum length of 60.0 meters, with the size class of 10-20 m. total body length (TBL) most commonly reported. The diameter of the body is 3-10 % of the TBL...A comparision of the Type lll Animal to the 'Great New England Sea Serpent (GNESS)', Cadborosaurus willsi, an unidentified marine animal observed in proximity to the United Kingdom, and an unknown animal observed in the regions of Scandinavia, and Indochina yeilded 100 %, 100%, 82%, 92%, 92% agreement, respectively. Using the same comparison criteria, the animals in the Clark video appear to be a Type lll, (Multiple Humped Animal), or similar, animal." In his conclusion Champagne states "Though the frequency of the Clark brother's observations may seem incredible, history also recounts an even greater frequency of very similar observations of what is known as the 'Great New England Sea Serpent (O'Neill, 1999)' in the Gloucester Harbor and proximate areas off Maine in 1817 (see period drawing in appendix)."

Crotalus said "But it doesn't matter....you have your position and it will not change. That is why you are not even in the realm of science."

You provide us with an unbiased expert of your choice who will view and analyse oue entire video and have them tell us that. You telling us that doesn't mean anything.

Crotalus said "If you were concerned with science you would accept the fact that your 'theory' could be wrong...."

If you saw what we saw you would accept the fact that our "theory" couldn't be wrong!

Crotalus said "You would lay it out for all to see in a peer reviewed article instead of making everyone jump through hoops to get the needed data."

Stop your whining and lying. With a miniscule of effort on your part you can obtain all the data.

User avatar
SkepticReport
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Post by SkepticReport » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:47 am

sfseaserpent wrote:With a miniscule of effort on your part you can obtain all the data.


I responded to your email. Please check it.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:04 am

SkepticReport said "I responded to your email. Please check it."

We checked our hotmail address but there is no email from you. Please send it again.

User avatar
SkepticReport
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Post by SkepticReport » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:58 am

sfseaserpent wrote:SkepticReport said "I responded to your email. Please check it."

We checked our hotmail address but there is no email from you. Please send it again.


We have connection now. :)

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:53 am

sfseaserpent wrote:B said "Sfseaserpent, it has been my experience, from numerous scenarios just like the one which is going on in this thread, that nothing of any value whatsoever will come of this."

How many times have you had eyewitnesses to a definitive sighting of a sea serpent who have evidence in the form of a 3 and 1/2 minute video and two in-depth analyses from "experts" who provided supporting documentation for their opinions? We're sure that happens all the time here.

B said "You have come here with an agenda..."

That's correct. Our agenda was to invite you to participate in the scientific analysis of our video by providing us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who would be willing to view and analyse our entire video and provide supporting documentation for their opinion.

B said "You have data that, for some reason, has convinced you, but hasn't convinced others which you have shown it to."

Oh really! Who do you claim those others are? Have any of them provided supporting documentation for their opinion? Have any of them read the Paiva/Slusher and Champagne analyses? The only people who we have shown our video to who have done an in-depth analysis of our video and provided supporting documentation for their analysis are Paiva, Slusher and Champagne.

B said "But instead of listening to these others..."

Why would we value the opinions of people who haven't seen our entire video, read either the Paiva/Slusher analysis or the Champagne analysis or have seen what we have seen from only 20 yards away?

B said "you have built walls around your belief that their advice cannot penetrate. Eventually, these walls turn into a labyrinth that you feel so safe behind, that you actually go out and look for others to challenge."

That's BS! You are just trying to mischaracterize our conduct because we won't allow cynics, skeptics and nonbelievers to try and tell us that we didn't see what we KNOW we saw. You just didn't expect anyone ever to have a close and definitive sighting like we have had who will come forward and present their claim to the scientific community in spite of any ridicule and insults.

B said "Well, guess what. That's not how science works, and people like us who know that that's not how science works will just ignore your carefully-built labyrinth and go straight to the heart of your claim."

We'll tell you how science works. The scientific process doesn't jump to conclusions before examining all the evidence and giving that evidence the proper weight it deserves. You are just a pseudo-scientist and it is becoming more and more obvious to us. Real scientists would never act the way you and ilk have. It's people like you that prevent honest scientific inquiry from occurring because of the way you treat eyewitnesses when they do step forward and attempt to testify about their experiences.

B said "We're not going to beg you to send us your video"

We aren't asking you to beg us for a copy. We told you how you could obtain a copy.

B said "We're not going to choose an expert of your choice for you."

We didn't ask you to choose an "expert" of our choice for us. We asked you to choose an "expert" of your choice for you. If you don't want to do that then that's fine with us. We are just giving you the opportunity to do so.

B said "We are going to interview you."

Like hell you are!

B said "As a very wise person once said in another thread, 'You have entered the shark's cage, old chum.' "

We are well aware of where we are. That's why we came here. However, we prefer to refer to it as "the belly of the beast".

B said "You have come to us with a claim that you know we are not going to believe, just like dozens if not hundreds have done before you."

Why? Is that because you are so biased you KNOW sea serpents couldn't possibly exist?

B said "We're not here to dissuade you; since your belief is based more on your ego than on reason, it is impossible to dissuade you using reason."

First of all it isn't our "belief". It is our "knowledge". We have "knowledge" that you don't have based on our personal experience and not our ego. It appears that fact hurts your ego! You are not using reason when you try to dissuade us from telling you we couldn't be mistaken about what we KNOW we saw. In fact, it is unreasonable because you won't even examine our evidence before concluding we are wrong to claim we KNOW what we saw was a sea serpent.

B said "You are here to convince us, and you won't do that by requiring us to dance to your tunes."

You do have an ego problem, don't you? If you want to call the tunes then YOU pay the piper!

B said "We'll just say 'No thanks, we'd rather sit this one out', and laugh at you as you try to spin that into a moral victory."

You need to see a doctor!

B said "None of your tactics are new to us here.
Only the specifics of your claim are. If you continue with these tactics, your effort here is doomed to failure. Just like everyone else before you."

If you don't want to work with us then you are the big loser not us.

B said "Now. Having said that, I will offer you two pieces of advice."

Advice from a fool is worthless!

B said "1) You really, really need to increase the trustworthiness of your evidence. Even the best videotape is no substitute for a single actual body part. Remember that Alien Autopsy tape from a few years back? In your opinion, which is more believable - your tape, or the AA one? If your tape isn't at least as clear, and as long, as that one, don't even bother."

What an idiotic statement!

B said "2) If you value your ego, you will not send a copy of your tape to SkepticReport. He will tear you new ones in places you didn't even know could be torn."

We may be "new" to this website but we are "old" players in this game. Bring it on!

B said "He will publish his analysis on his Web 'zine and the entire skeptical and scientific communities will read about you."


Great! That's exactly what we want then we can compare his analysis to our "experts" analyses and see who is correct.

B said "Then again, now that you have put yourself on his radar, he is likely to do that to you if you don't send him a copy as well."

Don't worry, we are not afraid to send him a copy but we expect him to provide supporting documentation for his opinion otherwise his opinion is worthless.

B said "The laughter is going to be quieter if you send him the tape, though. So I change my mind; you are going to lose face either way, but you will lose less face if you send him the tape."

We won't lose any face because we know we are right and you are wrong.

[mod]Try to keep the level of discussion out of the realm of insult, please. The general hostility is unwarranted, but I'll let that pass; the specific insults, examples bolded by me, and there are other examples elsewhere in this topic, are becoming unacceptable. We're here for rational discourse, not verbal one-upsmanship.[/mod]

User avatar
Skeptical...
New Member
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:52 pm
Location: USA

Post by Skeptical... » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:35 pm

sfseaserpent - please do us all a favor and, next time, leave the video camera at home and take a fishing pole instead. All of this brouhaha would be rendered academic if you would simply land one of these alleged serpents and show us.

Frankly, I am somewhat at a loss to understand your confrontation attitude. We are certainly under no obligation to prove you wrong. As the person making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to prove yourself right. All we need to do is prove reasonably doubt, which I think has been accomplished (in spades). The louder you type, the more it would seem to show the weakness of your case. You will certainly convince no one by brow-beating them and bludgeoning them with your highly pixelated "evidence".

S
"At a time of universal deceit -
telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

User avatar
Crotalus
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: Southwestern Illinois

Post by Crotalus » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:11 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:Didn't you leave out a little bit of Champagne's explaination why it couldn't be seaweed?


No I did not, I gave his conclusion regarding seaweed....that it is unlikely. He did not conclude that it was impossible.

sfseaserpent wrote:Once you see the video you will understand better why a pectoral fin couldn't explain the look or behavior of the animal in our video. Besides, Champagne explained why it couldn't be any known whale that frequents the SF Bay area.


You missed my point. I'm not trying to explain what is or what isn't in your video. My point was that the credibility of your only expert in marine biology is questionable when he leaves out large chuncks of information regarding marine life that COULD explain what's in the video.

sfseaserpent wrote:If you saw what we saw you would accept the fact that our "theory" couldn't be wrong!


Wrong. If I saw something so fantastic, I would indeed question if what I saw was real and STRIVE to provide concrete evidence to others in order to confirm it....not expect others to believe it just because I had some highly questionable and non-definitive video.

sfseaserpent wrote:Stop your whining and lying. With a miniscule of effort on your part you can obtain all the data.


That's funny.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:38 pm

Skeptical said "sfseaserpent - please do us all a favor and, next time, leave the video camera at home and take a fishing pole instead. All of this brouhaha would be rendered academic if you would simply land one of these alleged serpents and show us."

We would be willing to do that if we can use you for bait.

Skeptical said "Frankly, I am somewhat at a loss to understand your confrontation attitude."

What to you mean by "confrontation attitude"? All we are doing is making valid counterpoints to the points at us.

Skeptical said "We are certainly under no obligation to prove you wrong."

That's right but if you are going to claim we are wrong and that the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis are also wrong then you are obligated to prove that claim!

Skeptical said "As the person making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to prove yourself right."

We have. The video and the analyses we have obtained from Paiva, Slusher and Champagne proves we our claim.

Skeptical said "All we need to do is prove reasonably doubt, which I think has been accomplished (in spades)."

No you haven't since you haven't viewed and analysed all the evidence and given it its proper weight. All you have proven is that you have reached your conclusion based on UNREASONABLE doubt!!!

Skeptical said "The louder you type, the more it would seem to show the weakness of your case. You will certainly convince no one by brow-beating them and bludgeoning them with your highly pixelated 'evidence'."

That's a typical skeptic's misrepresentation of the facts.

User avatar
Crotalus
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: Southwestern Illinois

Post by Crotalus » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:20 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:Then why does he say "The captured images appear to be large, unidentified marine animals displaying multiple behaviors and movements at the water surface, in an area proximate to the Angel and Alcatraz islands in San Francisco Bay, and at an approximate distance of 3 km. The unidentified, serpentine animals appear to occupy a general position approximately 2 km from the southwest shores of Angel Island." He also says "The author suggests that the objects in the Clark's January 26, 2004 video are not images of known species or phenomena, or a designed hoax. It is proposed that the images in the video may be an animal the author has labeled the Type lll, or Multiple Humped, animal. This, yet as scientifically undescribed animal was proposed by the author after a review of over 1200 independent observations with an accompanying method for rating accuracy and veracity (2005).


Why would Champagne state this you ask? Very simple. He believes in sea serpents also. So by stating this in his analysis of your video, he lends credence to his own work (see below). He is telling you exactly what you want to hear and along the way it makes his work seem more valid. That is why he is biased.

Champagne, B., 2001. A Preliminary Evaluation of a Study of the Morphology, Behavior, Autoecology, and Habitat of Large, Unidentified Marine Animals Based on Recorded Field Observations. Crypto; Dracontology Special #1, Francestown, NH.

Champagne, B., 2005. An Evaluation or the Morphology, Behavior, Habitat and Distribution of Large, Unidentified Marine Animals Based on Recorded Field Observations, With a Proposed Methodology and System of Quality Control for Subsequent Research.

User avatar
Don_Fernandez
Poster
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:37 pm
Location: Under the Milky Way

Post by Don_Fernandez » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:55 pm

sfeseaserpent wrote: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.
I pointed to the National Geographic sponsored analysis and said "your video has aired on National Geographic where they had experts who said it only showed birds."
I never said it was clear enough or that I held that Frederick's opinion was unquestionable. I only pointed that another expert at image analysis has contradicted your chosen experts.

sfseaserpent wrote:jzs said "Where is Champagne's degree from?"

That information has already been provided earlier in the thread.

Yes I (not you) provided it, let me repeat myself:
Don_Fernandez wrote: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.


sfseaserpent wrote: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.
See what I wrote before (emphasis added):
Don_Fernandez wrote: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.
[...]
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.
I studied invertebrate zoology in college, I could call myself an expert according to the loose way you seem to define the term.
Scientific credentials are proven by a publication record in peer reviewed journals, there is no such record for your "expert" as far as I can tell (see previous post where a search of scholarly articles in biology fails to find any by him).
You have posted the resume of Paiva, why don't you post the resume of Champagne, so that you can show others, not just me that he could be considered an expert.

He is also someone bound to be biased, as he merits a mention in the Sea Serpent entry at the Wikipedia. There's a link to an article there in a downloadable PDF file (see pp.99-118).
taken from the end of the article that Champagne wrote:Champagne has written Cryptozoology-related magazine articles and television programs, and has been involved with cryptozoological research for over 23 years
Questionable expertise, unquestionable bias.

I agree with JZS, the emphasized part is especially important:
jzs wrote: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.

You have experts in image analysis that are not experts in biology.
You have biased persons that are educated in biology (one of them, Champagne, of dubious credentials, the other an expert in invertebrates) but are not experts in images analysis. They are demonstrably biased to conclude that your video shows cryptoanimals.

It's good of you to ask for an unbiased expert.

Harold Slusher is not even a Ph.D., not in a way recognized institutions of higher learning such as the University of Texas at El Paso
the UTEP course catalog wrote:HAROLD SCHULTZ SLUSHER, Assistant Professor of Physics, 1957,
B.A., University of Tennessee; M.S., University of Oklahoma
Someone already questioned his doctoral degree and mentioned a link with more information, which I quote:
Harold S. Slusher, formerly of the Institute for Creation Research, is best known for his critiques of radiometric dating techniques. He is also known for the rather bizarre suggestion that the universe is much smaller than it appears, because its geometry is Riemannian as opposed to Euclidean.

Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Robert Schadewald discovered that Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. As for Columbia Pacific, it "exhibits several qualities of a degree mill" [3]. Ronald Numbers describes CPU as
an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year." Slusher's dissertation consisted of a manila folder containing copies of five memographed ICR "technical monographs" and a copy of the ICR graduate school catalog, all held together with a rubber band. The supervising professor was his creationist colleague from El Paso and the ICR, [Thomas] Barnes, who himself possessed only an honorary doctorate. [2]

According to Bears' Guide [1], Columbia Pacific was denied its application for state license renewal in early 1996 for undisclosed reasons. The university appealed the decision in late 1996, but the appeal had not been acted upon by the time Bears' Guide went to press.

Slusher, as well as his friend Paiva, are biased to conclude your video shows an antediluvian monster since in their view that would validate their unscientific views on creationism.

sfseaserpent wrote:Since our "experts" who made the analyses are claiming "our" sea serpent is real if it is your claim they are not "experts" and their analyses are faulty then in science the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that they are not experts and where their analyses are in error.
Your appointed "experts" have been proven to have questionable credentials, bias towards agreeing with your conclusions, and lack the needed expertise on both biology and image analysis. Their expertise is impeachable, that suffices. As a scientist I would not go analyzing the errors of a quantum physics paper by a biology expert, simply because it would be so full or errors that it isn't worth it. Same principle applies to examining the reports of your chosen "experts".
sfseaserpent wrote:jzs said "And let's get the 'analyses' peer reviewed in a mainstream scientific journal."

Until they are reviewed in a mainstream scientific journal they are still available for peer review by contacting Paiva, Slusher and Champagne.
They don't count as peers, since they are not experts. The one authentic peer-review is that by fellow monster hunter Jan Sundberg at GUST, the verdict from that is clear...
sfseaserpent wrote:We'll tell you how science works. The scientific process doesn't jump to conclusions before examining all the evidence and giving that evidence the proper weight it deserves. You are just a pseudo-scientist and it is becoming more and more obvious to us. Real scientists would never act the way you and ilk have. It's people like you that prevent honest scientific inquiry from occurring because of the way you treat eyewitnesses when they do step forward and attempt to testify about their experiences.
You don't get to tell me how science works, I have a bachelors, a masters and a doctoral degree in Chemistry (my degrees are not from a distance learning institution, nor from a creationist diploma mill). I do research in materials, I read the scientific literature frequently, I know by personal experience how science works.
Science does not trust eyewitness reports, except in very few cases. Science trusts and expects repeatability, and relies on converging evidence from several disciplines.
In 20 years of believing in sea serpents you have only recently produced evidence, and that evidence is questionable.
In less years much evidence has accumulated for Architeutis resulting in finally a recent sighting, with clear pictures, not fuzzy video. When your evidence for sea serpents is up to that level then you can say it's scientific.
sfseaserpent wrote: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!
There are universities in California with marine biology departments. much easier for you in the area to look for those experts and send them your video.
Andy68 already said that.
I said it in another form: don't ask us to do your homework for you.
It's your claim, you defend it. Your chosen experts are questionable, find others yourself.

In the meantime, here are some questions for you:
If more than one unbiased expert agrees that your video shows nothing extraordinary will you accept that as a valid conclusion?
Or in other words, are you open minded to the possibility that your video is not evidence of a sea serpent?
In other words: are you only looking for comfirming evidence or are you willing to admit that you might be wrong?

Being willing to admit you're wrong is a necessary attitude in science. Don't claim you have a scientific outlook if you are unable to leave that door open.


sfeseaserpent wrote:B said "We are going to interview you."

Like hell you are!
Three pages and 34 posts and counting show that we are indeed interviewing you... :)
"Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase"
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:05 pm

Crotalus said "Why would Champagne state this you ask? Very simple. He believes in sea serpents also. So by stating this in his analysis of your video, he lends credence to his own work (see below). He is telling you exactly what you want to hear and along the way it makes his work seem more valid. That is why he is biased."

The reason he is stating it is because he is accurately describing what can be seen in our video. If our video validates his personal belief and theory it doesn't mean he is biased. It means he is correct.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 10:47 pm

sfeseaserpent said "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."

DF said "I pointed to the National Geographic sponsored analysis and said 'your video has aired on National Geographic where they had experts who said it only showed birds.' "

Likewise, we pointed out to you that your statement was in error because it wasn't "experts" but rather ONE "expert" forensic image consultant to the FBI who is not a biologist, marine biologist or zoologist who claimed it is "birds" in our video but refuses to provide us with any supporting documentation for his opinion while our "experts" have presented their supporting documentation why it isn't "birds".

Only a few seconds of the 3 1/2 minute video was shown on the NG program so try to be a little more factually accurate. Don't misrepresent the facts by stating that the video was aired when only a small segment was aired.

DF said "I never said it was clear enough or that I held that Frederick's opinion was unquestionable."

That's fine but now that you have clarified that do you think his analysis is questionable since he is not a biologist, marine biologist or zoologist and he refuses to provide us with any supporting documentation for his opinion?

DF said "I only pointed that another expert at image analysis has contradicted your chosen experts."

Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are not OUR chosen "experts". In the case of Paiva and Slusher we were told by Jan Sundberg to send the video to Paiva and after we did Paiva contacted us and asked if he could do an in-depth analysis of our video. We had never heard of Paiva until Jan Sundberg referred us to him. Regarding Bruce Champagne, we met him at http://www.cryptozoology.com where he expressed his skepticism of our claims about our video. He obtained copies of our video and the Paiva/Slusher analysis from BSM Associates and did his own independent analysis. We had never had any prior personal contact with him.


sfseaserpent wrote:jzs said "Where is Champagne's degree from?"

sfseaserpent said "That information has already been provided earlier in the thread".

DF said "Yes I (not you) provided it,"

We never said that we provided it. We just said that information was posted earlier in the thread.

Don_Fernandez said "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."

You have yet to send me your mailing address so that we can send you his full resume.

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.[...] 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.
I studied invertebrate zoology in college, I could call myself an expert according to the loose way you seem to define the term."

If you don't have at least a BS degree in zoology or invertebrate zoology from anywhere then we wouldn't consider you an "expert" in those fields.

DF said "Scientific credentials are proven by a publication record in peer reviewed journals,"

BS. There are a lot of people who are "experts" in their field who have never published anything in a peered reviewed journal.

DF said "there is no such record for your "expert" as far as I can tell (see previous post where a search of scholarly articles in biology fails to find any by him)."

See our previous statement.

DF said "You have posted the resume of Paiva, why don't you post the resume of Champagne, so that you can show others, not just me that he could be considered an expert."

He told us that he doesn't post his full resume on the internet. He sends it to people who request it from him. Therefore we won't post his full resume on the internet. If you want it we can mail it to you or you can contact him and get it.

DF said "He is also someone bound to be biased, as he merits a mention in the Sea Serpent entry at the Wikipedia. There's a link to an article there in a downloadable PDF file (see pp.99-118).
taken from the end of the article that Champagne wrote:Champagne has written Cryptozoology-related magazine articles and television programs, and has been involved with cryptozoological research for over 23 years
Questionable expertise, unquestionable bias."

Are you saying your offical skeptic position is that anyone who has ever expressed the belief in the possibility that sea serpents might exist and/or has actually studied the subject or investigated reported sightings is automatically considered "biased"and therefore any analysis done by them of a video claiming to contain images of a sea serpent is automatically disregarded without even a cursory examination of whether or not their findings are correct? If you are then are you claiming that people who don't believe in even the possibility that sea serpents might exist and/or have never studied the subject or investigated reported sightings are the only people who are "unbiased" and are capable of giving an honest analysis of a video claiming to contain images of a sea serpent?

DF said "I agree with JZS, the emphasized part is especially important: jzs said "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." You have experts in image analysis that are not experts in biology. You have biased persons that are educated in biology (one of them, Champagne, of dubious credentials, the other an expert in invertebrates) but are not experts in images analysis. They are demonstrably biased to conclude that your video shows cryptoanimals."

Well, we agree with our previous response to jzs.

DF said "It's good of you to ask for an unbiased expert."

Paiva, Slusher and Champagne have all given honest and unbiased analyses of our video. We are just inviting you to provide one of your choice to analyse our video.

DF said "Harold Slusher is not even a Ph.D., not in a way recognized institutions.."

Is it your claim that Paiva and Slusher are not "experts" in physics or are you just shooting the messengers because you don't like the message?

DF said "Slusher, as well as his friend Paiva, are biased to conclude your video shows an antediluvian monster since in their view that would validate their unscientific views on creationism."

Wouldn't it be prudent for you to review and evaluate their analysis for accuracy before you accuse them of producing a biased and inaccurate analysis of our video in order to validate their "unscientific views on creationism"?

sfseaserpent said "Since our 'experts' who made the analyses are claiming "our" sea serpent is real if it is your claim they are not 'experts' and their analyses are faulty then in science the burden of proof shifts to you to prove that they are not experts and where their analyses are in error."

DF said "Your appointed 'experts' have been proven to have questionable credentials, bias towards agreeing with your conclusions, and lack the needed expertise on both biology and image analysis. Their expertise is impeachable, that suffices."

No it doesn't. You haven't proven anything. You have just made accusations which are not proof that their analysis of our video is incorrect. What would suffice is for you to prove that their analysis of our video is incorrect.

DF said " As a scientist I would not go analyzing the errors of a quantum physics paper by a biology expert, simply because it would be so full or errors that it isn't worth it. Same principle applies to examining the reports of your chosen 'experts'."

What a cop out. A REAL scientist wouldn't hesitate to examine our video and the analyses in order to prove that they are incorrect. You are NOT a scientist. You are a pseudo-scientist!

jzs said "And let's get the 'analyses' peer reviewed in a mainstream scientific journal."

sfseaserpent said "Until they are reviewed in a mainstream scientific journal they are still available for peer review by contacting Paiva, Slusher and Champagne."

DF said "They don't count as peers, since they are not experts."

Whether or not YOU or anyone else is willing to admit that they are "experts" in their fields the scientific community has an obligation to investigate our claim that we have a video which contains images of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay and whether or not the analyses of Paiva, Slusher and Champagne which support that claim are in fact accurate.

DF said "The one authentic peer-review is that by fellow monster hunter Jan Sundberg at GUST, the verdict from that is clear..."

Since Jan has provided NO supporting documentation for his opinion that what's in our video is only "seaweed" which can be reviewed by ANYONE and since Jan disagrees with his own "expert image analyst", Clifford Paiva, who Jan has relied upon in the past in determining that other photos and videos DON'T contain images of sea serpents Jan's opinion is of no value.

sfseaserpent wrote:We'll tell you how science works. The scientific process doesn't jump to conclusions before examining all the evidence and giving that evidence the proper weight it deserves. You are just a pseudo-scientist and it is becoming more and more obvious to us. Real scientists would never act the way you and your ilk have. It's people like you that prevent honest scientific inquiry from occurring because of the way you treat eyewitnesses when they do step forward and attempt to testify about their experiences.


DF said "You don't get to tell me how science works, I have a bachelors, a masters and a doctoral degree in Chemistry (my degrees are not from a distance learning institution, nor from a creationist diploma mill). I do research in materials, I read the scientific literature frequently, I know by personal experience how science works."

None of your degrees makes you an expert in image analysis, physics, biology, marine biology or zoology. Dr. Ed Bousfield's, Dr. Paul Leblond's, Clifford Paiva's, Dr. Harold Slusher's and Bruce Champagne's opinions are of more value than your opinion of what is in our video. BTW, we are both college educated and Bob has a BS in Mathematics so don't treat us like we are high school dropouts. We are well aware of how science works so don't think you have to come down off your ivory tower and lecture us.

DF said "Science does not trust eyewitness reports, except in very few cases."

What are those cases? How were the Giant Panda, Orangutan, Gorilla and many other previously unknown animals discovered? It was a result of eyewitnesses stepping forward and claiming to have seen those animals even before they were able to get a "good" photograph or specimen. After that, scientists investigated those claims and were able to eventually verify that those animals did in fact exist! They didn't do what you are doing which is to invalidate every eyewitness' claim without even investigating or analysing their claim and/or evidence. Yeah, your a real scientist!

DF said "Science trusts and expects repeatability, and relies on converging evidence from several disciplines."

That's exactly what we are doing. That's why we are inviting the skeptic community to participate in the analysis of our video. Since Paiva, Slusher and Champagne have provided their supporting documentation explaining how and why they arrived at their conclusions their analyses are repeatable and verifiable.

DF said "In 20 years of believing in sea serpents you have only recently produced evidence, and that evidence is questionable."

That is not true. We don't just BELIEVE sea serpents exist. We KNOW they exist as a result of our first sighting and have been discussing it with members of the scientific community ever since. We also previously produced photos from two earlier sightings. The video evidence may be questionable to you but that is because you are dismissing it without even viewing and analysing it.

DF said "In less years much evidence has accumulated for Architeutis resulting in finally a recent sighting, with clear pictures, not fuzzy video."

What are you talking about? For centuries scientists thought the giant squid was only a myth and it wasn't until a dead specimen was found that the scientific community finally had to admit they existed. It wasn't until recently that any photos or video (fuzzy or clear) of a living adult Architeutis in its natural habitat was obtained. It was the field researchers that finally got the video evidence.

DF said "When your evidence for sea serpents is up to that level then you can say it's scientific."

Since you haven't viewed and analysed our video and the supporting analyses you are in no position to claim what level of proof our evidence has reached.

DF said "There are universities in California with marine biology departments. much easier for you in the area to look for those experts and send them your video."

If that is the case then why did the SF Academy of Applied Sciences refuse to even look at our video?

DF said "I said it in another form: don't ask us to do your homework for you."

We're not asking you to do our homework. We're asking you to do your own homework.

DF said "It's your claim, you defend it."

We are and we will continue to defend our claim.

DF said "Your chosen experts are questionable, find others yourself."

That's just your biased opinion. If you want to decline our invitation to be involved in the scientific analysis of our video don't say that we didn't give you the opportunity.

DF said "In the meantime, here are some questions for you:
If more than one unbiased expert agrees that your video shows nothing extraordinary will you accept that as a valid conclusion?"

Any "unbiased" expert who analyses our video won't disagree with the other "unbiased" experts who already have analysed our video and who have provided supporting documentation for their opinions.

DF said "... are you open minded to the possibility that your video is not evidence of a sea serpent?"

Are you openminded to the possibility that our video IS evidence of a sea serpent?

DF said "... are you only looking for comfirming evidence or are you willing to admit that you might be wrong?"

Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong about our video and the supporting analyses?

DF said "Being willing to admit you're wrong is a necessary attitude in science."

We are willing to admit we are wrong when we have been proven wrong. However, we are not going to say we are wrong when we have been proven right.

DF said "Don't claim you have a scientific outlook if you are unable to leave that door open."

That door swings both ways. Are you willing to admit that you might by wrong about our video and the existence of sea serpents?

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:12 pm

sfseaserpent said "Didn't you leave out a little bit of Champagne's explaination why it couldn't be seaweed?"

Crotalus said "No I did not, I gave his conclusion regarding seaweed....that it is unlikely. He did not conclude that it was impossible."

If Champagne doesn't mean it is impossible to be sea weed Then why does he say "The images in the Clark, January 26, 2004 video recording extend and descend intermittently above the surface, and at a height of approximately 8 m. (Paiva and Slusher, 2005). The flexible stipe does not provide sufficient structural support for extension to the degree required for visibility at the reported distance(s)."?

sfseaserpent said "Once you see the video you will understand better why a pectoral fin couldn't explain the look or behavior of the animal in our video. Besides, Champagne explained why it couldn't be any known whale that frequents the SF Bay area."

Crotalus said "You missed my point. I'm not trying to explain what is or what isn't in your video. My point was that the credibility of your only expert in marine biology is questionable when he leaves out large chuncks of information regarding marine life that COULD explain what's in the video."

You missed the implication of his statement when he explained why it could not be any known whale that frequents the SF Bay area. The implication is that if it can't be any known whale than it can't be any part of any known whale.

sfseaserpent" said "If you saw what we saw you would accept the fact that our 'theory' couldn't be wrong!"

Crotalus "Wrong. If I saw something so fantastic, I would indeed question if what I saw was real and STRIVE to provide concrete evidence to others in order to confirm it..."

If you saw what we saw from only 20 yards away you couldn't question if what you saw was real. You'd KNOW it was real.

Crotalus said "...not expect others to believe it just because I had some highly questionable and non-definitive video."

You are not in any position to characterize our video in that matter since you haven't viewed it in its entirety.

User avatar
Don_Fernandez
Poster
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:37 pm
Location: Under the Milky Way

Post by Don_Fernandez » Sat Oct 08, 2005 12:31 am

sfseaserpent wrote:Only a few seconds of the 3 1/2 minute video was shown on the NG program so try to be a little more factually accurate. Don't misrepresent the facts by stating that the video was aired when only a small segment was aired.

DF said "I never said it was clear enough or that I held that Frederick's opinion was unquestionable."

That's fine but now that you have clarified that do you think his analysis is questionable since he is not a biologist, marine biologist or zoologist and he refuses to provide us with any supporting documentation for his opinion?
Indeed, the National Geographic hired person is questionable as an expert. But I'd say they chose him because of his expertise in at least image analysis. That puts him on equal footing with Paiva/Slusher.

sfseaserpent wrote:Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are not OUR chosen "experts".
You have rejected the analysis of Fredericks and Sundberg, who are arguably just as much of an expert as Paiva/Slusher and Champagne, and in doing so you have indeed chosen 2.5 out of 4.5 (or 2 out of four, since Paiva and Slusher work together).

sfseaserpent wrote:jzs said "Where is Champagne's degree from?"

sfseaserpent said "That information has already been provided earlier in the thread".

DF said "Yes I (not you) provided it,"

We never said that we provided it. We just said that information was posted earlier in the thread.
And yet you don't dare deny what I said: Champagne got his B.S. degree from a distance learning institution that does not have a marine biology program.
You have had several chances to point out such fact as incorrect, yet you don't.

sfseaserpent wrote:If you don't have at least a BS degree in zoology or invertebrate zoology from anywhere then we wouldn't consider you an "expert" in those fields.
Yet you consider Paiva/Slusher expert enough to trust their conclusion that your video is of a sea serpent...

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "Scientific credentials are proven by a publication record in peer reviewed journals,"

BS. There are a lot of people who are "experts" in their field who have never published anything in a peered reviewed journal.
Examples please? And if they are not published then please be sure to state how and why the scientific community does recognize them as experts.
Is not BS, it's an unfortunate consequence of the "publish or perish" scientific culture.

sfseaserpent wrote:Are you saying your offical skeptic position is that anyone who has ever expressed the belief in the possibility that sea serpents might exist and/or has actually studied the subject or investigated reported sightings is automatically considered "biased"and therefore any analysis done by them of a video claiming to contain images of a sea serpent is automatically disregarded without even a cursory examination of whether or not their findings are correct?
I am not. As a skeptic I'm open to possibilities so I try to avoid any "official position."
But the fact is that people that want to see spaceships will see them in any UFO. People that want to believe in psychics will believe in them.
Our beliefs shape our interpretations. As a skeptic I try to avoid that my beliefs and wants influence my interpretation of research results. As a scientist I have seen the spectacular misfortune of Pons and Fleishmann being so convinced that they found cold-fusion that they forgot to be skeptic. That is just one example of how beliefs can affect interpretation.
Paiva/Slusher and Champagne want to believe in sea serpents, this can cloud their interpretation, thus I consider that they might be wrong due to bias. I'm not sure, but I'm reasonably certain. Equally the beliefs of Fredericks might have predisposed him to not find a sea serpent in your video. On the other hand Sundberg would want to find sea serpents, yet he pronounced your video not worthy as evidence.


sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "Harold Slusher is not even a Ph.D., not in a way recognized institutions.."

Is it your claim that Paiva and Slusher are not "experts" in physics or are you just shooting the messengers because you don't like the message?
I just want to make sure that academic credentials are not misrepresented as in the prior mentions of "Dr." Slusher. I don't question the physics expertise of Paiva/Slusher, I question their zoological expertise.

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "Your appointed 'experts' have been proven to have questionable credentials, bias towards agreeing with your conclusions, and lack the needed expertise on both biology and image analysis. Their expertise is impeachable, that suffices."

No it doesn't. You haven't proven anything. You have just made accusations which are not proof that their analysis of our video is incorrect. What would suffice is for you to prove that their analysis of our video is incorrect.
Nope, when someone without experience is passed off as an "expert" in the field but is not that is enough to cast serious doubt on their conclusions. That is enough for me to think it would be a waste of time to do it. When I read the materials paper of a mechanical engineer speculating about the chemistry of the material synthesis I can tell that they're wrong because I know more about the field than they do (that only passes muster with reviewers when the paper lands in a non-chemistry journal). I know from experience that the opinions of non-experts are hard to trust.

sfseaserpent wrote:What a cop out. A REAL scientist wouldn't hesitate to examine our video and the analyses in order to prove that they are incorrect. You are NOT a scientist. You are a pseudo-scientist!
For me it's enough that the thesis committee believed I had the making of a scientist and approved my Ph.D. degree. The evidence of peer-reviewed publications also says I'm a scientist. The scientists that hired me to do materials research and graduate teaching recognized me as a peer. The evaluation committees of my grants also think I have enough scientific credential (or I wouldn't have had the funding). Given that, whether you think I'm a scientist is irrelevant to me.

sfseaserpent wrote:Whether or not YOU or anyone else is willing to admit that they are "experts" in their fields the scientific community has an obligation to investigate our claim that we have a video which contains images of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay and whether or not the analyses of Paiva, Slusher and Champagne which support that claim are in fact accurate.
Since when is the obligation of the scientific community to evaluate each and every claim?

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "You don't get to tell me how science works, I have a bachelors, a masters and a doctoral degree in Chemistry (my degrees are not from a distance learning institution, nor from a creationist diploma mill). I do research in materials, I read the scientific literature frequently, I know by personal experience how science works."

None of your degrees makes you an expert in image analysis, physics, biology, marine biology or zoology. Dr. Ed Bousfield's, Dr. Paul Leblond's, Clifford Paiva's, Dr. Harold Slusher's and Bruce Champagne's opinions are of more value than your opinion of what is in our video. BTW, we are both college educated and Bob has a BS in Mathematics so don't treat us like we are high school dropouts. We are well aware of how science works so don't think you have to come down off your ivory tower and lecture us.
I say it again: you don't get to tell me how science works.
Since you have discarded me as an expert in marine biology you should stop saying I should review your video, since you would just discard my opinion as that of a non-expert. I know physics (I have even taught physics), by becoming a materials researcher knowing just chemistry wasn't enough, if I was working on biomaterials I'd have to refresh my biology knowledge.
See note above about "Dr. Slusher" your insistence on him as a doctor is what motivated me to show that he is not a real one.

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "In 20 years of believing in sea serpents you have only recently produced evidence, and that evidence is questionable."

That is not true. We don't just BELIEVE sea serpents exist. We KNOW they exist as a result of our first sighting and have been discussing it with members of the scientific community ever since. we also previously produced photos from two earlier sightings. The video evidence may be questionable to you but that is because you are dismissing it without even viewing and analysing it.
And this is exactly the problem, you are so sure you "know" that you are rejecting anything that contradicts what you "know."


sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "There are universities in California with marine biology departments. much easier for you in the area to look for those experts and send them your video."

If that is the case then why did the SF Academy of Applied Sciences refuse to even look at our video?
That is up to them to answer. You still have the choice of attempting to talk to individuals, marine biologists and/or image analysis experts at several universities.

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "In the meantime, here are some questions for you:
If more than one unbiased expert agrees that your video shows nothing extraordinary will you accept that as a valid conclusion?"

Any "unbiased" expert who analyses our video won't disagree with the other "unbiased" experts who already have analysed our video and who have provided supporting documentation for their opinions.
You seem to define "unbiased" as "agreeing with us."

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "... are you open minded to the possibility that your video is not evidence of a sea serpent?"

Are you openminded to the possibility that our video IS evidence of a sea serpent?
Why, of course I am. I'm just waiting for the evidence to accumulate and for enough experts (real ones) to declare it trustworthy.
What you have shown and said, combined with what others have shown and said, until now makes it my provisional conclusion that you don't have a video of a sea serpent in SF, so they remain pure SF (science fiction).
Before the Architeutis photos I had the provisional conclusion that they were so scarce and lived so deep that they wouldn't be captured on film or alive. The evidence accumulated otherwise and I revised my conclusion.

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "... are you only looking for comfirming evidence or are you willing to admit that you might be wrong?"

Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong about our video and the supporting analyses?
Why, of course I am, see above.

sfseaserpent wrote:We are willing to admit we are wrong when we have been proven wrong. However, we are not going to say we are wrong when we have been proven right.
See, I'm the same, until I'm proven wrong I keep believing you don't have video of a sea serpent and that your interpretation is SF (science fiction).

sfseaserpent wrote:DF said "Don't claim you have a scientific outlook if you are unable to leave that door open."

That door swings both ways. Are you willing to admit that you might by wrong about our video and the existence of sea serpents?
Again, I am willing to admit I'm wrong, I'm just waiting for the evidence to accumulate and for enough experts (real ones) to declare it trustworthy.

But you haven't really answered my question: Are you willing to admit that you might by wrong about your video and the existence of sea serpents?
Is at least one of you two more skeptic than the other?
Is at least one of you more willing to consider you might be wrong?
If then, what would it take for (any or both of) you to decide you are wrong?
"Such... is the respect paid to science that the most absurd opinions may become current, provided they are expressed in language, the sound of which recalls some well-known scientific phrase"
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:32 am

"the author has labeled the Type lll, or Multiple Humped, animal"

A camel?

after a review of over 1200 independent observations


All blurry/fuzzy/pixelated/distorted pics/video and/or anecdotes probably.

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sat Oct 08, 2005 3:49 am

sfseaserpent wrote:That's right but if you are going to claim we are wrong and that the Paiva/Slusher analysis and the Champagne analysis are also wrong then you are obligated to prove that claim!


No one has claimed they are "wrong". What we have claimed is that a variety of things are suspect to the highest degree for a variety of reasons already discussed, and that, more importantly, there are a variety of things to consider before resorting to 'I don't know what it is, therefore it is an animal with these properties' stuff.

Another reason is that you refuse to make the video publically available so anyone can analyze it.

Skeptical said "As the person making the extraordinary claim, it is up to you to prove yourself right."

We have. The video and the analyses we have obtained from Paiva, Slusher and Champagne proves we our claim.


You may believe that a pixelated video and non-peer reviewed-in-a-scientific-journal write-ups by questionable experts in biology is 'to prove', but it isn't even remotely a candidate for evidence of what you or the Experts are proposing.

For example, you have yet to explain how that pixelated pic of a few blocks (the last pic on your page) shows that the "animal" had a "square snout," etc. Will you explain this to us all?

No you haven't since you haven't viewed and analysed all the evidence and given it its proper weight.


Why do you refuse to put the entire video on the internet?

Why do you refuse to submit it to be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Why can't you post better pictures on your webpage? Don't you have any clear pictures?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:17 am

For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:33 am

DF said "Indeed, the National Geographic hired person is questionable as an expert. But I'd say they chose him because of his expertise in at least image analysis. That puts him on equal footing with Paiva/Slusher."

The difference is that Paiva and Slusher provided 18 pages of supporting documentation for their opinions while Fredericks has provided 0 pages of supporting documentation for his opinion.

DF said "You have rejected the analysis of Fredericks and Sundberg, who are arguably just as much of an expert as Paiva/Slusher and Champagne"

Sundberg doesn't come close to being as much of an expert in image analysis and physics as Paiva and Slusher since he has no formal education in those fields and engaged the services of Paiva as an expert image analyst in the past to analyse several photos Jan thought contained images of a sea serpent. When Paiva disagreed and explained why Jan was wrong Jan accepted Paiva's expert opinion. So apparently Jan disagrees with you. Also, Jan has no formal education in marine biology so he is not equally qualified with Champagne in that field.

DF said "and in doing so you have indeed chosen 2.5 out of 4.5 (or 2 out of four, since Paiva and Slusher work together)."

One of the reasons why we've rejected the opinions of Sundberg and Fredericks is because they refused to produce any supporting documentation explaining why they reached their conclusions and why Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's conclusions are incorrect.

DF said "Champagne got his B.S. degree from a distance learning institution that does not have a marine biology program. You have had several chances to point out such fact as incorrect, yet you don't."

We do not know all the details regarding how Champagne received his BS degree in marine biology. Until we talk to him we are in no position to comment on it other then to say that no one gets a BS degree in any subject without achieving a level of expertise.

DF said "As a skeptic I'm open to possibilities so I try to avoid any 'official position.' But the fact is that people that want to see spaceships will see them in any UFO."

When we had our first sighting it wasn't a matter of us "wanting" to sea a sea serpent. We had no choice.

DF said "People that want to believe in psychics will believe in them. Our beliefs shape our interpretations."

What makes you think that we belived in the existence of sea serpents before we saw one?

DF said "As a skeptic I try to avoid that my beliefs and wants influence my interpretation of research results."

Then why do you believe that we believed in the existence of sea serpents before we saw one?

DF said "Paiva/Slusher and Champagne want to believe in sea serpents, this can cloud their interpretation..."

Whether or not they want to believe that sea serpents exist has no bearing whatsoever on what can be seen in our video.

DF said "thus I consider that they might be wrong due to bias."

If that's what you believe then all you have to do is honestly evaluate their analyses and determine that their interpretation of our video is incorrect. The other side of that coin is that they might be right due to being unbiased and truthfully stating what can be seen in the video.

DF said "Equally the beliefs of Fredericks might have predisposed him to not find a sea serpent in your video."

We have no way of knowing why he came to his conclusion since he refuses to provide us with any supporting documentation explaining how and why he arrived at his opinion.

DF said "On the other hand Sundberg would want to find sea serpents, yet he pronounced your video not worthy as evidence."

Sundberg has also spent 25 years trying to be the first person to get photographic evidence of sea serpents. A week after he published his "sea weed" article about our video he went on his latest expedition to try an obtain his own video of a sea serpent.

DF said "I don't question the physics expertise of Paiva/Slusher, I question their zoological expertise."

Paiva is an image analyst with over 30 years experience working for the US Navy and is an expert in determining whether an object is animate or inanimate. He and Slusher are both "experts" in physics and determined that the objects in our video behaved in a manner that only an animate object could behave. They also were able to determine that the animals in our video were 75+ feet in length and serpentine in shape. We are not experts in zoology or marine biology but even we know there is no known marine animal that fits that description. As we previously stated, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. In other words, you don't need an expert to know the obvious.

DF said "...when someone without experience is passed off as an 'expert' in the field but is not that is enough to cast serious doubt on their conclusions."

Paiva, Slusher and Champagne have a lot of experience in their related fields. You can doubt their conclusions all you want but until you prove that their conclusions are wrong you can't claim it is a fact that they are wrong.

DF said "I know from experience that the opinions of non-experts are hard to trust."

Then no one should trust your opinion in regards to our video and the existence of sea serpents since you are a non-expert in image analysis, zoology and marine biology.

DF said "The scientists that hired me to do materials research and graduate teaching recognized me as a peer."

Likewise, the people who have hired Paiva, Slusher and Champagne have recognize them as experts in their fields.

DF said "The evaluation committees of my grants also think I have enough scientific credential (or I wouldn't have had the funding). Given that, whether you think I'm a scientist is irrelevant to me."

Likewise, the people who have hired Paiva,Slusher and Champagne think they have enough scientific credentials too.
Whether or not you think Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are scientists is irrelevent to the people who have hired them for their scientific expertise.
DF said "Since when is the obligation of the scientific community to evaluate each and every claim?"

Isn't it the obligation of the scientific community to gather information about possible new discoveries?

DF said "Since you have discarded me as an expert in marine biology you should stop saying I should review your video, since you would just discard my opinion as that of a non-expert."

We are not asking for you to review our video for your opinion. However, if you are going to give your opinion at the very least you should review our video. What we are asking of you is to provide us with an unbiased "expert" of your choice who is willing to analyse our entire video and provide us with supporting documentation for their opinion.

DF said "In 20 years of believing in sea serpents you have only recently produced evidence, and that evidence is questionable."

sfseaserpents said "That is not true. We don't just BELIEVE sea serpents exist. We KNOW they exist as a result of our first sighting and have been discussing it with members of the scientific community ever since. we also previously produced photos from two earlier sightings. The video evidence may be questionable to you but that is because you are dismissing it without even viewing and analysing it."

DF said "And this is exactly the problem, you are so sure you 'know' that you are rejecting anything that contradicts what you 'know'."

Since we perceived directly a sea serpent from only 20 yards away we have the right to say that we KNOW what we saw and no one who wasn't there with us that we DON'T KNOW what we saw.

DF said "You still have the choice of attempting to talk to individuals, marine biologists and/or image analysis experts at several universities."

And we are giving you the opportunity to provide us the one of your choice in order to talk to one that you trust.

DF said "You seem to define 'unbiased' as 'agreeing with us.' "

You seem to define "unbiased" as someone who doesn't believe in even the possibility that sea serpents might exist and who has never studied the subject or researched any claimed sightings"

DF said "... are you open minded to the possibility that your video is not evidence of a sea serpent?"

DF said "What you have shown and said, combined with what others have shown and said, until now makes it my provisional conclusion that you don't have a video of a sea serpent in SF, so they remain pure SF (science fiction)."

Today's science fiction is tomorrow"s science fact.

DF said "Before the Architeutis photos I had the provisional conclusion that they were so scarce and lived so deep that they wouldn't be captured on film or alive. The evidence accumulated otherwise and I revised my conclusion."

Then maybe after you see our entire video and read both analyses you will revise your conclusion about our video and the existence of sea serpents.

sfseaserpent said "We are willing to admit we are wrong when we have been proven wrong. However, we are not going to say we are wrong when we have been proven right."

DF said "See, I'm the same, until I'm proven wrong I keep believing you don't have video of a sea serpent and that your interpretation is SF (science fiction)."

We are not the same. We have been proven right while you haven't been proven right. You only "believe" you are right.
We KNOW based on knowledge while you BELIEVE based on ignorance.

DF said "But you haven't really answered my question: Are you willing to admit that you might by wrong about your video and the existence of sea serpents?"

No, because we KNOW we are not wrong about the existence of sea serpents since we saw one from only 20 yards away whether or not you believe we did. We also KNOW that what is in our video are images of several sea serpents swimming in S.F. Bay and we have two in-depth analyses with supporting documentation which agree with us.

Are you willing to admit that we could be telling you the truth about us seeing a sea serpent from only 20 yards away?

DF said "Is at least one of you two more skeptic than the other?"

After what we both saw from only 20 yards away, not about the existence of sea serpents.

DF said "Is at least one of you more willing to consider you might be wrong?"

Again, after what we both saw from only 20 yards away, we are not willing to consider we might be wrong. We KNOW we are not wrong whether or not we can prove it to anyone else.

DF said "If then, what would it take for (any or both of) you to decide you are wrong?"

Nothing! That's like asking Neil Armstrong after he stepped on the moon "What would it take for you to decide that you were wrong about someday mankind being able to walk on the moon?" or asking the Wright brothers after their first successful flight at Kitty Hawk "What would it take for you to decide you are wrong about man being able to fly in a heavier than air machine?"
Last edited by sfseaserpent on Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:57 am

sfseaserpent wrote:Sundberg doesn't come close to being as much of an expert in image analysis and physics as Paiva and Slusher since he has no formal education in those fields and engaged the services of Paiva as an expert image analyst in the past to analyse several photos Jan thought contained images of a sea serpent.


What formal education do any of them have in marine biology?

Thanks.

comment on it other then to say that no one gets a BS degree in any subject without achieving a level of expertise.


A B.S. is merely an introduction to the topic. A B.S. hardly grants expertise.

Whether or not they want to believe that sea serpents exist has no bearing whatsoever on what can be seen in our video.


Only blurry/pixelated stuff can be seen. If one was biased into believing the existence of Fairies, that person could call the 'animal' in your video a Type III Fairy.

Paiva is an image analyst with over 30 years experience working for the US Navy and is an expert in determining whether an object is animate or inanimate. He and Slusher are both "experts" in physics and determined that the objects in our video behaved in a manner that only an animate object could behave.


What is their marine biology education / experience again? You seem to forget, often, that image analysis is merely one aspect of the analysis.

They also were able to determine that the animals in our video were 75+ feet in length and serpentine in shape. We are not experts in zoology or marine biology but even we know there is no known marine animal that fits that description.


Kelp can grow lengths well beyond 75 feet.

  • Why won't you post your video on the internet?
  • Why aren't their any clear pictures of your 'animal'?

We KNOW they exist as a result of our first sighting and have been discussing it with members of the scientific community ever since


Just not in any respectable scientific peer reviewed journal. So really, you haven't been discussing it in the real scientific community at all.

Today's science fiction is tomorrow"s science fact.


That's the romantic view. Unfortunately for romantics, much of today's science fiction is still science fiction tomorrow, the next day, and the next, and ...

we have two in-depth analyses with supporting documentation


Have these been peer reviewed in a respectable scientific journal?

That's like asking Neil Armstrong after he stepped on the moon "What would it take for you to decide that you were wrong about someday mankind being able to walk on the moon?" or asking the Wright brothers after their first successful flight at Kitty Hawk "What would it take for you to decide you are wrong about man being able to fly in a heavier than air machine?"


The difference is, is that those amazing people actually have evidence of what they did.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 4:42 am

sfseaserpent said "Sundberg doesn't come close to being as much of an expert in image analysis and physics as Paiva and Slusher since he has no formal education in those fields and engaged the services of Paiva as an expert image analyst in the past to analyse several photos Jan thought contained images of a sea serpent."

jzs said "What formal education do any of them have in marine biology?"

We don't know but we are relying on their expertise in image analysis and physics not in marine biology. Are you actually going to claim even though they determined there are images in our video of several 75+ foot long serpentine marine animals that they don't possess the intellectual capacity to deduce they are animals unknown to science? Hell, it's common knowledge that there is no known 75+ foot long serpentine marine animal!


jzs said "A B.S. is merely an introduction to the topic. A B.S. hardly grants expertise."

BS. Marine biology 101 is an introduction to the subject.

sfseaserpent said " Whether or not they want to believe that sea serpents exist has no bearing whatsoever on what can be seen in our video."

jzs said "Only blurry/pixelated stuff can be seen."

How would you know since you haven't seen the entire video?

jzs said "If one was biased into believing the existence of Fairies, that person could call the 'animal' in your video a Type III Fairy."

You're a Type lll sophist.

sfseaserpent said "Paiva is an image analyst with over 30 years experience working for the US Navy and is an expert in determining whether an object is animate or inanimate. He and Slusher are both 'experts' in physics and determined that the objects in our video behaved in a manner that only an animate object could behave."

jzs said "What is their marine biology education / experience again? You seem to forget, often, that image analysis is merely one aspect of the analysis."

You seem to forget that you don't need to be an expert in marine biology to know that a 75+ foot long serpentine marine animal is an animal unknown to science. If it wasn't we wouldn't be arguing with each other, would we?


sfseaserpent said "They also were able to determine that the animals in our video were 75+ feet in length and serpentine in shape. We are not experts in zoology or marine biology but even we know there is no known marine animal that fits that description."

jzs said "Kelp can grow lengths well beyond 75 feet."

Kelp is an inanimate object and Paiva and Slusher determined that the objects in our video are animate. If you believe that it is kelp in our video then you disagree with Grant Fredericks, right?

jzs said "Why won't you post your video on the internet?"

We don't need to.

jzs said "Why aren't their any clear pictures of your 'animal'?"

How do you KNOW there aren't since you haven't seen the entire video?


sfseaserpent said "We KNOW they exist as a result of our first sighting and have been discussing it with members of the scientific community ever since"

jzs said "Just not in any respectable scientific peer reviewed journal. So really, you haven't been discussing it in the real scientific community at all."

Are you claiming that Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans and Forrest Wood weren't scientists and members of the scientific community? Are you claiming Dr. Ed Bousfield, Dr. Paul LeBlond, J. Richard Greenwell, Dr. Roy Mackel, Dr. Henry Bauer and Gary Mangiacopra aren't scientists and members of the scientific community? Are you claiming that the ISC and the BCSCC don't have any members that are scientists?


sfseaserpent said "Today's science fiction is tomorrow"s science fact."


jzs said "That's the romantic view. Unfortunately for romantics, much of today's science fiction is still science fiction tomorrow, the next day, and the next, and ..."

Likewise, a lot of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact and that's reality.

sfseaserpent said "we have two in-depth analyses with supporting documentation"

jzs said "Have these been peer reviewed in a respectable scientific journal?"

No, but that isn't proof they are wrong.

sfseaserpent said "That's like asking Neil Armstrong after he stepped on the moon 'What would it take for you to decide that you were wrong about someday mankind being able to walk on the moon?' or asking the Wright brothers after their first successful flight at Kitty Hawk 'What would it take for you to decide you are wrong about man being able to fly in a heavier than air machine?' "

jzs said "The difference is, is that those amazing people actually have evidence of what they did."

So do we. We have our video and two supporting analyses. Some skeptics still don't believe man landed on the moon in spite of all the evidence.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Oct 09, 2005 1:32 pm

Let's get down to business.

If we're to select an "expert" to analyze the video, what qualifications should this expert have? I think it's necessary to establish these qualifications before we start looking for candidates. It would be pointless to invite someone who was not sufficiently qualified to examine the video. So, please give us a list of acceptable qualifications, so we'll know we're asking an expert whose opinion you will consider.

Just as we criticize your experts on the basis of their lack of knowledge of marine flora and fauna, we should avoide having to criticize new experts on the basis of them not having the "right" knowlege of image analysis. Let's establish the correct qualifications that will satisfy all parties involved, find the "right" experts, send the video to them, and see what develops.

I propose that, once selected, the identity or identities of this expert be kept secret until after the analysis is complete. The expert should not be given any information other than the photographs or the video and should not be pointed to the various discussions of this claim that exist on the web. Critical information such as location, dates, times, weather, etc. should be made available, but not the identities of the claimants or other parties involved. The examiner should not be told what to look for; simply ask them "What is this?", not "Is this a sea serpent?"

First, though, let's establish the qualifications. Then we can establish the protocol.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:01 pm

jzs said "What formal education do any of them have in marine biology?"

We don't know but we are relying on...


That is most likely a mistake because biological experience is important when trying to tell if your pixelated blobs are animals or not.

Are you actually going to claim even though they determined there are images in our video of several 75+ foot long serpentine marine animals that they don't possess the intellectual capacity to deduce they are animals unknown to science?


I only claim that biological experience is extremely relevant here, and if they lack it, then, well, they lack it.

Hell, it's common knowledge that there is no known 75+ foot long serpentine marine animal!


We still don't know if it was an animal or not. But, like I said, kelp can easily get that long.

jzs said "A B.S. is merely an introduction to the topic. A B.S. hardly grants expertise."

BS. Marine biology 101 is an introduction to the subject.


Are you really saying that it is sensible to equate "introduction" with "expertise"?

How would you know since you haven't seen the entire video?


I've seen all the pics from video stills that you have posted, and they are easily seen to all be blurry/pixelated.

Do you have any that aren't? If so, please don't keep them secret.

You're a Type lll sophist.


Perhaps, and worse, but you still don't have evidence for your claims.

You seem to forget that you don't need to be an expert in marine biology to know that a 75+ foot long serpentine marine animal is an animal unknown to science.


That is a fundamental mistake.

One needs to be very familiar with marine animals if one is saying that an object is or is not a marine animal, or several animals flocked together, etc.

In general, image analysts would not have this very important knowledge.

Kelp is an inanimate object


In a vacumn, yes. In the water, in real life, kelp gets moved.

jzs said "Why won't you post your video on the internet?"

We don't need to.


Why? Don't you want the experts everywhere in the world to pronounce it as an amazing discovery? Why do you shy away from analysis by many scientists from all over the world?

jzs said "Why aren't their any clear pictures of your 'animal'?"

How do you KNOW there aren't since you haven't seen the entire video?


All the pics, which are video stills, you posted are not clear. That is an obvious fact.

If there are some, please don't keep them a secret.

jzs said "Just not in any respectable scientific peer reviewed journal. So really, you haven't been discussing it in the real scientific community at all."

Are you claiming that Dr. Bernard Heuvelmans and Forrest Wood weren't scientists and members of the scientific community? Are you claiming Dr. Ed Bousfield, Dr. Paul LeBlond, J. Richard Greenwell, Dr. Roy Mackel, Dr. Henry Bauer and Gary Mangiacopra aren't scientists and members of the scientific community? Are you claiming that the ISC and the BCSCC don't have any members that are scientists?


I'm claiming that you have not published your amazing findings in any respected peer reviewed scientific journal as far as I know.

That is the main way the scientific community discusses results.

Do you refuse to publish in such a manner?

Likewise, a lot of yesterday's science fiction is today's science fact and that's reality.


An incredibly microscopic portion, sure, ut it because science because there was something there, not because people clung to the notion that there was something there.

Your results will not become science by appealing to comparison to bizarre things from the past that ended up being real. You must prove your case on its own merits rather than by such desperate comparisions.

jzs said "Have these been peer reviewed in a respectable scientific journal?"

No, but that isn't proof they are wrong.


And I didn't say that is "proof they are wrong".

It certainly doesn't look good when your amazing results are not published in such a manner and have not gone through such a rigorous process. Such a process tends to weed out sloppy thinking and errors. Because your analyses have not gone through such a process we cannot be confident that they lack sloppy thinking and errors.

So do we. We have our video and two supporting analyses.


No, you do not.

Your video is blurry/pixelated, analyzed by some who are Creationism-friendly folk (and thus biased to believe in dinosaurs still living and Flood stuff), who apparently lack expertise in marine biology which is essential to the issue, and you're decision to not make the video available to the larger community, as well as to not publish in a respected peer reviewed scientific journal. All of these things do not magically equate to evidence for your claims.

Some skeptics still don't believe man landed on the moon in spite of all the evidence.


That comparison is false. The similarities end at people doubting something. For example, we know the moon is there, we have scientific instruments on it, we have formulas that can calculate when there will be an eclipse, what phase the moon will be, we know its chemistry, geology, and on and on.

What, if anything, do you have that compares to these real facts?

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:20 pm

Pyrrho said "If we're to select an 'expert' to analyze the video, what qualifications should this expert have?"

You can choose whoever YOU decide is qualified. We want to be completely left out of that decision.

Pyrrho said "The expert should not be given any information other than the photographs or the video and should not be pointed to the various discussions of this claim that exist on the web."

One of the purposes of our request is that if your "expert" reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your "expert" to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video.

Pyrrho said "Critical information such as location, dates, times, weather, etc. should be made available, but not the identities of the claimants or other parties involved."

Why shouldn't they have our identities and be able to contact us? After viewing the video and analyses they might have some questions that they want to ask.

Pyrrho said "First, though, let's establish the qualifications."

You guys can do that without our involvement.

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:32 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:Why shouldn't they have our identities and be able to contact us? After viewing the video and analyses they might have some questions that they want to ask.


Pyrrho is correct.

He's interested in making the analysis as unbiased as possible, which is always a desirible thing to do. That is exactly what a peer review process would focus on doing, the very thing which you don't appear to be keen on participating in.

User avatar
SkepticReport
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Post by SkepticReport » Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:42 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:You can choose whoever YOU decide is qualified. We want to be completely left out of that decision.

...

One of the purposes of our request is that if your "expert" reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your "expert" to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video.


But will you accept their analysis? What will it take?

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:28 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:Pyrrho said "If we're to select an 'expert' to analyze the video, what qualifications should this expert have?"

You can choose whoever YOU decide is qualified. We want to be completely left out of that decision.

No, no, no...if we're going to do this, and I am interested in doing this, we need to agree on the necessary qualifications. I want people on both sides of this question to be satisfied with the requirements for the experts we choose.
Pyrrho said "The expert should not be given any information other than the photographs or the video and should not be pointed to the various discussions of this claim that exist on the web."

One of the purposes of our request is that if your "expert" reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your "expert" to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video.

I won't agree to that until after our expert examines the evidence. I want our expert to examine the evidence without considering other opinions.

The point here is to examine the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion, not to criticize your experts. Let's keep the focus on the key question: Does the evidence show that there are sea serpents in San Francisco Bay?
Pyrrho said "Critical information such as location, dates, times, weather, etc. should be made available, but not the identities of the claimants or other parties involved."

Why shouldn't they have our identities and be able to contact us? After viewing the video and analyses they might have some questions that they want to ask.

For reasons stated above. If I call in an expert, my expert will examine the evidence on its own merits, without outside opinions, and especially without your opinions. This will assure as unbiased an analysis as possible. After we decide on the qualifications for this expert, then we can discuss what information you need to provide, at minimum, for an analysis you can be comfortable with. I can tell you right now that such information will be restricted to raw information, with no accompanying intrepretations of that information. Otherwise, the deal's off.
Pyrrho said "First, though, let's establish the qualifications."

You guys can do that without our involvement.

Your involvement is necessary. I want you to be comfortable with the expertise of the expert we choose before we start looking for one. I could call in a former co-worker who peformed image analysis for the US military, but you might not like his credentials.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sun Oct 09, 2005 3:53 pm

I would like to call in some experts who strongly believe in the Flood and in dinosaurs living with Man and therefore might be consciously/unconsciously biased into saying there are serpents there when there really aren't any, but I should be original and not duplicate previous efforts.

User avatar
Crotalus
Poster
Posts: 188
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 4:40 pm
Location: Southwestern Illinois

Post by Crotalus » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:04 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:Kelp is an inanimate object and Paiva and Slusher determined that the objects in our video are animate. If you believe that it is kelp in our video then you disagree with Grant Fredericks, right?


It is so obvious that you and Champagne have no idea how dynamic habitat can be. Using a video that represents the distance that you do, it is very narrow minded to suggest that it must be or not be a SINGLE animal/plant. The interaction between animal and plant life on a daily basis makes the situation so dynamic that it would be nearly impossible to discern with complete certainty (as you do) what you are seeing from that distance.

Like I've stated before do you think kelp is a static form of life that can only be present in the bay by itself? Kelp on the surface (75+ and serpentine, btw) may attract fish, this in turn may atract pelicans or seals or whales/dolphins which are animate. There are way too many combinations of flora and fauna that could represent what is in your video. Kelp and pelicans, kelp and whales, kelp and seals, pelicans and whales, kelp, pelicans and whales....do you see where I'm leading with this. You seem to think that animals and plants only exist one at a time, like in a field guide. That is not how dynamic habitats exist. And as Champagne likes to point out, I've seen this via personal experience and research.

I can go to any nearby river and stand on one bank and take a picture of the far side bank and in one picture have birds, basking turtles, mammals, numerous plant life, logs and any combination of "life" that inhabits that habitat.

Blobs with no discernable detail on a video from over 1 mile away do not prove the existence of anything but blobs on a video.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 9999
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am

Post by Pyrrho » Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:12 pm

So, what expertise is required? Here's what I consider to be the necessary qualifications for an expert who would analyze the evidence:
    Trained in image analysis

    Capable of identifying objects in photographs and video

    Capable of determining sizes and distances, based on photographs and video

    Demonstrated knowledge of flora and fauna of San Francisco Bay; not necessarily a marine biologist, although a marine biologist with a PhD would be my primary choice

    Person would not be involved in organized skepticism or in organized religious-based science, e.g. creationism


Any other requirements?
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:51 pm

sfseaserpent said "One of the purposes of our request is that if your "expert" reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your "expert" to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video."

SR said "But will you accept their analysis? What will it take?"

If they can provide supporting documentation that proves Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses are wrong we will accept their analysis.

User avatar
SkepticReport
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1759
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:07 pm

Post by SkepticReport » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:07 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:sfseaserpent said "One of the purposes of our request is that if your "expert" reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your "expert" to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video."

SR said "But will you accept their analysis? What will it take?"

If they can provide supporting documentation that proves Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses are wrong we will accept their analysis.


But you have already seen analyses that show that there is no such serpent.

Why would you be convinced by other experts you are not even interested in knowing, or their credentials?

User avatar
statisticool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 6:22 am

Post by statisticool » Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:37 pm

sfseaserpent wrote:that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses.


Champagne, for one, calls this a Type III animal, but he hasn't shown it to be an animal, let alone an animal unknown to science.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:19 pm

Pyrrho said "If we're to select an 'expert' to analyze the video, what qualifications should this expert have?"

sfseaserpent said "You can choose whoever YOU decide is qualified. We want to be completely left out of that decision."

Pyrrho said "No, no, no...if we're going to do this, and I am interested in doing this, we need to agree on the necessary qualifications. I want people on both sides of this question to be satisfied with the requirements for the experts we choose."

We will accept any "expert" of your choice who you think is qualified as long as they aren't "biased". By "biased" we mean that they think there is no possibility that sea serpents might exist. However, you seem to be unwilling for that to be a requirement since we would have to ask them that question and therefore they would realise that is what is claimed to be in the video.

Pyrrho said "The expert should not be given any information other than the photographs or the video and should not be pointed to the various discussions of this claim that exist on the web."

sfseaserpent said "One of the purposes of our request is that if your 'expert' reaches a different conclusion then Paiva, Slusher and Champagne that they would point out where Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are incorrect in their analyses. We want your 'expert' to examine and evaluate their analyses along with the video."

Pyrrho said "I won't agree to that until after our expert examines the evidence. I want our expert to examine the evidence without considering other opinions."

We don't require that they read Paiva's, Slusher's and Champagne's analyses BEFORE they do their own analysis. However, if they arrive at a different conclusion than Paiva, Slusher and Champagne then we insist they read both analyses and provide supporting documentation showing specifically where and why both analyses are wrong.

Pyrrho said "The point here is to examine the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion, not to criticize your experts. Let's keep the focus on the key question: Does the evidence show that there are sea serpents in San Francisco Bay?"

Some of our proof is in both analyses. Paiva and Slusher used special state of the art equipment to determine some of the characterists of the objects including that they were animate.

Pyrrho said "Critical information such as location, dates, times, weather, etc. should be made available, but not the identities of the claimants or other parties involved."

sfseaseapent said "Why shouldn't they have our identities and be able to contact us? After viewing the video and analyses they might have some questions that they want to ask."

Pyrrho said "For reasons stated above. If I call in an expert, my expert will examine the evidence on its own merits, without outside opinions, and especially without your opinions."

Other than first making Paiva, Slusher and Champagne aware we were claiming our video contained images of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay we only provided them with factual information such as the length of the tour boat, How high above the surface of the water we were, what type of camera we used, etc. We didn't try to influence their opinions in any way and we have no intention of trying to influence the opinion of whoever you would choose.

Pyrrho said "This will assure as unbiased an analysis as possible."

It won't assure as unbiased an analysis as possible unless we first know that your expert doesn't believe there is absolutely no possibility that sea serpents might even exist.

Pyrrho said "After we decide on the qualifications for this expert, then we can discuss what information you need to provide, at minimum, for an analysis you can be comfortable with. I can tell you right now that such information will be restricted to raw information, with no accompanying intrepretations of that information."

We can tell you right now that we have no intention of providing no other information except raw information. We have always conducted ourselves in that manner with all the "experts" that we have allowed to analyse our video including Fredericks.

Pyrrho said "Otherwise, the deal's off."

Unless you can prove to us that your "expert" is "unbiased" as we have defined the word then the deal is off. All your expert has to do is tell us that they don't think there isn't even any possibility that sea serpents might exist. We will take them at their word that they are telling us the truth which is more than you would do for us.

Pyrrho said "First, though, let's establish the qualifications."

sfseaserpent said "You guys can do that without our involvement."

Pyrrho said "Your involvement is necessary. I want you to be comfortable with the expertise of the expert we choose before we start looking for one."

We will be comfortable with whomever you choose as long as you can prove to us they are "unbiased" as we have defined the word.

Pyrrho said "I could call in a former co-worker who peformed image analysis for the US military, but you might not like his credentials."

Don't assume anything about us. Just prove to us that he is "unbiased", willing to do an in-depth analysis of our entire video and provide supporting documentation for his opinion.

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

Post by sfseaserpent » Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:37 pm

SR said "But you have already seen analyses that show that there is no such serpent."

That's news to us. We are not aware of anyone who claims to have done an analysis of our video and who has provided any supporting documentation proving that there is no images of sea serpents in our video. Fredericks has NEVER provided us with any supporting documentation for his "analysis". Sundberg has only written an article on his website expressing his opinion that what is in our video is only "sea weed" without providing any supporting documentation that can be evaluated. He hasn't provided anything proving that's what's in our video.

SR said "Why would you be convinced by other experts you are not even interested in knowing, or their credentials?"

We don't need to know them or their credentials. All they have to do is provide supporting documentation proving that the analyses by Paiva, Slusher and Champagne are wrong and we will have no choice but to accept the conclusion of their analysis.
Last edited by sfseaserpent on Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.