What cryptids might be real?

[Zippy Omicron]

More on 1905 sighting near Brazil river

Correa Neto,

It is correct that this is a "just a sighting." But it was a sighting that is a first-person account, if I am reading this correctly.

It says here, in the first paragraph:

"....

The chief witnesses in this amazing yet little-remembered encounter were experienced British naturalists, Fellows of the Zoological Society of London best known for their work in ornithology. Their account of "a creature of most extraordinary form and proportions" is recorded in the 1906 edition of the Society's Proceedings and in Nicoll's 1908 book Three Voyages of A Naturalist.

..."

So when this appeared in 1906 edition of the Zoological Society of London's "Proceedings," I think that this can be labeled a first-person accounting, not a third-person. (Although I have not seen the original piece.) One of the eyewitnesses apparently also wrote about the incident in a book subsequently.

Now you are correct in saying the main article is not the first-person accounting, but an examination by other third parties as to what they might have seen.

But the reason why I posted this is because it is:

a) A first-person account by what can be identified as scientists;
b) The account apparently is describing something in format to the general form of what people describe as a "sea serpent" (the actual description of one of the eyewitnesses, if I am interpreting this correctly). Which is not a creature catalogued by science currently. And it was viewed for several minutes.


No UFO stuff here. There is no connection between what I am posting and UFOs.

But I am attempting to elicit (definition 2 in Webster's collegiate dictionary) here is that there are sightings of unknown creatures by scientists, and at times these sightings do get into scientific literature. Not everything is imaginary (even if the majority may be).

And that should be something to take note of.

 

[Damien Evans]

Exactly what I meant by small.

Don't forget that thylacines existed on mainland Australia too....not just Tasmania.

Mike

You have a very non-standard definition of small.

Thylacines went extinct on mainland Australia thousands of years ago, probably due to being outcompeted by the Dingo.

 

[Dinwar]

Pliny the Elder described also the unicorn so I guess we can file that one too in the "non cryptid" box.

I've seen unicorns as well. It's a genetic mutation in certain deer--it gives them only one horn. It explains why they have cloven hooves (though the beard is still a mystery to me). A unicorn probably is merely a misidentification of a weird mutation.

The dragon, on the other hand.....

The Shrike's point, though, is valid: giant squid have been washing up on beaches and things for a long, long time. So their existence has never been in doubt (it's REALLY hard to convince yourself something doesn't exist when the ammonia smell makes the area impossible to stay in for long). They've merely been extremely mysterious.

Zippy Omicron, there are reasons to doubt the validity of this sighting, even if the information in your link is true:

The chief witnesses in this amazing yet little-remembered encounter were experienced British naturalists, Fellows of the Zoological Society of London best known for their work in ornithology.

These people were talking outside fo their area of expertise. That's always dangerous. Simply put, they may have misiniterpreted what they saw. This is evidenced by their horendous drawing of a plesiosaur.

No UFO stuff here. There is no connection between what I am posting and UFOs.

Yeah, there is. These were ORNITHOLOGISTS. They studied birds, not marine reptiles. A hundred yards sounds close, but it's really not (remember, you've got to take into account the freeboard, reflections from the surface, and all kinds of other complicating factors). And while it sounds easy to identify what's a part of an animal and what isn't any paleontologist can tell you stories about being confused by rocks that look like fossils (I keep a few on-hand just to remind myself of it). This could easily be a bit of wood, a sea snake, and a mistake about what was being seen.

The connection to UFOs is where the researchers went from "We saw something strange" to "We saw a sea serpant". They have no evidence of that--they don't even have evidence that it was a serpant to begin with ("serpant" has a biological meaning, and that meaning is NOT "a long thing in the water"). At the very least they were exceedingly sloppy.

The DNA is a case closer. It supports South East Asia as the more likely origin of dingos.

uh......

 

[Damien Evans]

Dingos aren't even native to Australia. DNA analysis has shown that they are actually descendants of "domesticated" Asian wild dogs brought to Australia from China only about 6,000 years ago, and not by the forefathers of the Aborigines 40,000 years ago as originally thought.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3529010.stm

Is that supposed to be news? Everyone has known that for at least as long as I've been alive.

And they are still native anyway.

 

[Dinwar]

Is that supposed to be news? Everyone has known that for at least as long as I've been alive.

And they are still native anyway.

This is one of those things I love to ask biologists, then sit back and watch the fireworks. Everyone has a different answer, and the debates can get rather spectacular (and can get you thrown out of a bar, by the way!). It's an example of the (I believe) Epicurian Dilema: One stone doesn't make a heap; adding one stone doesn't make it a heap; therefore heaps do not exist. In this case, being there one year doesn't make it native, adding a year doesn't make it native, therefore it can never be native--except that the ecosystem has adapted to their presence, and therefore they CAN be considered native--except that we know humans brought them--except that.....

 

[Zippy Omicron]

Dinwar,

I understand what you are saying. But in this case, you do indeed have ornithologists, and they were educated in the scientific method (or at least, we can hope that they were--but I think we should be able to say that, as they were Fellows of the Zoological Society of London). Just earlier on in this thread the argument was being made that any scientist "out in the field/bush" would be able to make an identification of a creature, even if it were outside their field of study (RE: whether the existence of Sasquatches would be able to be confirmed via other scientists--not necessarily zoologists--out in the field, as there are numerous grouping currently conducting research that would allow their being out in the wild to come across Sasquatches if they did indeed exist).

As to being distant from the yacht, Dinwar, yes that is what the account states. But it also states the following:

"....

Meade-Waldo turned his binoculars on the object, and immediately a head on a long neck rose from the water in front of the frill. He estimated the neck was "about the thickness of a slight man's body, and from 7 to 8 feet was out of the water; head and neck were all about the same thickness."

The head had a very turtle-like appearance, as also the eye," Meade-Waldo wrote of the incident. It moved its head and neck from side to side in a peculiar manner: the color of the head and neck was dark brown above, and whitish below-almost white, I think."

The neck threw up a significant wave where it entered the water, and Nicoll noted that, "Below the water we could indistinctly see a very large brownish-black patch, but could not make out the shape of the creature."



..."

Now, they were using a technology that would allow them to see it closer--binoculars. And keep in mind that they observed it for several minutes, not seconds. And that they were indeed ornithologists would allow them to discern shape, color, movement, etc. You can say that these two were a brand of "animal locators/observers." (As are many scientists that study animals in the wild--it is part of what they do, in my opinion.) So on this specific point, I would not agree with you that their being ornithologists would disqualify them as appropriate eyewitnesses. I would also argue that your linkage to paleontologists mistaking rocks and fossils is not germane, as the two ornithologists were looking at a live creature, that rose up out of the water, sufficiently so that they could discern characteristics of head shape, eyes, etc. (Or, at least according to the Matt Bille accounting of the event.) These differing points of view that I am expressing with you are respectful disagreements.

All I am attempting to say is that this is a first-hand eyewitness case of two persons educated in the scientific method observing a creature unknown to science, and not catalogued by same. And it is "weird enough" to warrant discussion in this thread. And this incident did take place not in the 16th, 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries--but in the 20th century (albeit early on).

 

[Dinwar]

t in this case, you do indeed have ornithologists,

Right--which means they study BIRDS. There is no reason to expect that they have any expertise when it comes to marine creatures outside of birds.

and they were educated in the scientific method

There should be a name for this fallacy. Anyone in science knows that there's no "scientific method"--no standard set of procedures for coming to scientific conclusions. At best, there's only "all statements must be supported by data".

Just earlier on in this thread the argument was being made that any scientist "out in the field/bush" would be able to make an identification of a creature, even if it were outside their field of study

Not by me. My argument was that with the number of biologsits we have in the field today, if Bigfoot were real we should expect to see large numbers of reports of unidentifiable species or unsubstantiated sightings. I can't be held responsible for the statements others make.

Now, they were using a technology that would allow them to see it closer--binoculars.

Ever use a pair of binoculars? There are all sorts of fun tricks they can play on you. And they're not a stable platform--the image would be moving all over the place with the rocking of the boat and the motion of the observer's hands.

And that they were indeed ornithologists would allow them to discern shape, color, movement, etc.

True--but they would be unable to put it together in a meaningful way (or at least, we cannot assume that they would). They study BIRDS, and thought they were describing a reptile. Unless they were herpetologists as well as ornithologists, they would be unlikely to recognize rare reptiles, and unless they studied fish as well a combination of a fish behind a reptile could easily be very confusing to them.

I would also argue that your linkage to paleontologists mistaking rocks and fossils is not germane, as the two ornithologists were looking at a live creature, that rose up out of the water, sufficiently so that they could discern characteristics of head shape, eyes, etc.

You missed my point. My point was that even experts in a field can be duped by what they see. Someone without expertise in the field is far, far easier to dupe--and ornithologists are not experts in lizards, fish, or other things that one can expect to see in the water. Also note that I have never objected to their OBSERVATIONS, only to their CONCLUSIONS. It's an observation to say "We saw what appeared to be a fin, and immediately in front of it was a head and neck that bore a striking resemblance to a turtle." It's a conclusion to say "We saw a sea serpant." A good scientist will separate the two; it's a halmark of a mediocre scientist to not do so.

 

[The Shrike]

^Sounds like a group of Giant Otters to me, although I wouldn't expect them in the open ocean.

 

[Zippy Omicron]

Dinwar,

Here's a definition of the phrasing "scientific method" (URL link: http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/scientific method):

"....

NOUN:

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

..."

In the case of the two ornithologists, they fulfilled the first two parts of the "scientific method," namely a) observation of the phenomena, and b) forumlation of the hypothesis of the phenomena.

They couldn't fulfill the rest, as it was an observation of a live creature out in nature.

I will additionally throw out this to you. I am not an ocean mammal specilaist. But I do know, when I have been in southern California, that when I observe porpoises, that is what they indeed are, and when I have seen humpback whales, that is indeed what I was looking at. I have a sufficient knowledge base to recognize (hopefully over 95% of the time) the animals that I am seeing. I do think that the ornithologists would have sufficient enough awareness of what exists in the Animal Kingdom that they would be able to discern what they were observing wasn't the usual.

I know of no catalogued creatures with 8 foot long necks that live in the water.


Additionally, I have used binoculars on ocean-going vessels, and while there is indeed some of that "up and down" motion you mention, one can adjust to it while looking at creatures--especially if they are hanging around for several minutes at a time (like in observing humpback whales, and like the ornithologists had in their 1905 sighting, if Matt Bille's accounting is accurate).

I don't know how large the Valhalla yacht was, I don't know how it was constructed (did it have a railing? If so, how high? etc.), we don't know if the pair leaned against anything to steady themselves during their binocular observations, but I would reckon the amount of "shifting" due to wave motion would be less than say in a launch one uses on a river (like one sees on Saturday morning animal shows for young people, such as Jack Hanna's).

Now I will say this as well.

I didn't post Matt Bille's article because I liked all parts of it. That is not the reason. I put it up because it is easily accessible, and also because it provided a first-hand eyewitness recording of an unrecognizable animal. (An animal unknown and uncatalogued by science--this is based on the descriptions of the eyewitnesses.)

The rest of Matt Bille's article isn't germane to the conversation. I am not a fan of Heuvelmans' stuff (even though I read two of his more accessible works in English), because I know that he has been fooled by a carny gaffe ("The Minnesota Ice Man") that he strongly felt was a bondafide example of a prehistoric man in modern times.

The key item that we are discussing are the first-hand observations.

 

[William Parcher]

They couldn't fulfill the rest, as it was an observation of a live creature out in nature.

Is this about the "sea serpent"? If so, how do we know they saw a live creature? Is it simply because they said so? If so, then we shouldn't just say "they observed a living creature"... we should say "they claimed to have observed a creature".

You can't cheat using semantics to get past Square One.

Bigfooters do that all the time. They say that people saw (or see) things instead of saying that they claim to have seen.

 

[Dinwar]

Here's a definition of the phrasing "scientific method"

I honestly don't care. [ETA: Sorry if that sounds harsh; it's meant to be exasperated. I'm arguing with some idiot at Skeptoid.com about exactly this point. The fact is, no scientist follows the same method--the only rule is that everything is backed up by reproducible data. Science is simply too diverse for any one method to cover it all.] I learned a definition in high school as well. Then I got involved in science and realized that the scientific method is a myth. There are multiple scientific methods, and if anyone thinks they have The One True Method it usually means they're so far into Crazyville that talking to them lowers your IQ (no, I'm not saying you're like that--just that most people who insist there is one are like that).

When someone can devise a test for a mass extinction, I'll accept that there's a single scientific method. Your other alternative is to declare all historical sciences unscientific--including archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and others. If you reject both of those notions, your only option remaining is that there are multiple scientific methods to match the multiple types of data we have.

I am not an ocean mammal specilaist. But I do know, when I have been in southern California, that when I observe porpoises, that is what they indeed are, and when I have seen humpback whales, that is indeed what I was looking at. I have a sufficient knowledge base to recognize (hopefully over 95% of the time) the animals that I am seeing.

Would you know a giant squid? How about some of the more obscure fish? The sea snakes? The flotsam? 95% is a pretty low number when you're sailing around the world in a boat--it means that 5% of the time you'll be wrong. This is one observation, in a scientific expedition--easily less than 1% of the observations. By your own logic, we should assume there would be a few (1 in 20, to be exact).

They couldn't fulfill the rest, as it was an observation of a live creature out in nature.

Again, the observation part isn't what I'm objecting to. It's the interpretation.

 

[mike3]

As for us knowing about it by now, not necessarily--but we'd have a LOT better evidence than we do now. Say, some evidence of apes in North America before humans arived. We've dug up a lot of Cenozoic rock, and haven't found anything. Or legitimate footprints, or hairs, or evidence of feeding, that sort of thing.

As for the Bigfoot researchers, they may be able to but they demonstrably are unwilling to do the work real scientists consider necessary. They demonstrate this by their continued refusal to do it.

If a lay person claims to have found Bigfoot, I expect the same as I'd expect from anyone else. I do not lower my standards because the person in question isn't a biologist. If they claim to have seen something weird, on the other hand, my threashold is lower. I won't go out and look on the basis of a campfire story, but if they had a photo or something it'd make it worth exploring. And if they only had the story I'd point them towards others who are more able to follow up on it. The difference is, the guy claiming to have seen something weird isn't claiming to have a new species--just to have seen something weird. I've seen a lot of UFOs--I study rocks, so I suck at identifying flying things. Got a friend who I don't think ever has--he can tell you from the sound of the engine what vehicle it is. As long as I say "I saw something odd", I'm being perfectly rational--it's only when I go on and say "....therefore aliens" that I dive head-first into the crazy.

So, what could a lay person do that would meet your standards, despite a lack of professional training? Has any lay person you've ever seen or heard of met those standards before for some kind of claim -- i.e. for a real, true claim and not a "woo" claim like Bigfoot? Does this mean even a body or bones would not be enough for you to take the claim seriously and give it attention?

I'm not sure. I have a vague recollection of the zoological nomenclature people considering removing the requirement to have an actual specimen, due to the fact that a lot of the species we're naming right now tend to be highly endangered. I don't recall if that went anywhere or not, though. That said, while a sighting can be enough to get people looking--the ivory-billed woodpecker proves that--I don't think that a single sighting is ever considered proof.

DNA studies have been done on fossilized sloth, mammoth, packrat, and human scat that I know of. So into the Pleistocene under the right conditions.

Also, I want to point out that there's nothing like most cryptids in their proposed environment. There are no apes in North America, and to my knowledge no native monkies in the areas Bigfoot is proposed to live in. Loch Ness has nothing that could be confused with a Pleisosaur. The Chupicabra's proposed killing mechanism is unique. The list goes on. While some new species--or relics of old species--may be similar to modern ones, most cryptids can't hide that way.

As for biologists being in the field, if there were enough apes in North America to form a breeding population you'd see more evidence of it in the biological surveys done for construction (often done in the middle of nowhere [people don't like to live next to power plants or oil pipelines] so there's no danger of scaring them away). These people ARE in the field and ARE prepared, and given the number of them working at any given time it takes a huge dose of rationalizations to explain away the failure to see them. One team? Sure. The number we have out right now (given how many my company has out, I'd say it's in the thousands)? Not a chance.

Just want to say this looks like a very good, solid argument against the Bigfoot idea.

 

[mike3]

I honestly don't care. [ETA: Sorry if that sounds harsh; it's meant to be exasperated. I'm arguing with some idiot at Skeptoid.com about exactly this point. The fact is, no scientist follows the same method--the only rule is that everything is backed up by reproducible data. Science is simply too diverse for any one method to cover it all.] I learned a definition in high school as well. Then I got involved in science and realized that the scientific method is a myth. There are multiple scientific methods, and if anyone thinks they have The One True Method it usually means they're so far into Crazyville that talking to them lowers your IQ (no, I'm not saying you're like that--just that most people who insist there is one are like that).

When someone can devise a test for a mass extinction, I'll accept that there's a single scientific method. Your other alternative is to declare all historical sciences unscientific--including archaeology, geology, paleontology, astronomy, and others. If you reject both of those notions, your only option remaining is that there are multiple scientific methods to match the multiple types of data we have.

This is something I'm curious about: if there's no single scientific method, then what does it mean in those textbooks when they talk about something called "the scientific method"? I've seen it before. What's up with it?

And if there's no such thing as "the" scientific method, there still must be some way to distinguish science from nonscience and pseudo-science (i.e. "woo"). So what classifies a method or a body of research as "science"?

 

[mike3]

I.e. what standard do you expect a lay person claiming "I saw Bigfoot" to meet (as opposed to a "Bigfoot researcher") just to have their claim taken seriously, and do you have proof that it is possible for a lay person, a person not the "unique kind of person" you mentioned in your one post, to meet it if the creature really existed (i.e. examples of non-unique-type lay people meeting the standard when the claim "I saw Bigfoot" is replaced by "I saw X", where X is a real but not-then-accepted creature, or even the whole "I saw..." claim replaced by some other, true claim that nevertheless required a similarly high standard to be met.)?

Would you give a rat's behind about their claim if they had a body of Bigfoot?

 

[The Shrike]

There is nothing a "lay person" or scientist could do that could substantiate an anecdotal claim.

Now if the claim is mundane, it's likely to be assumed correct. For example, when I enter my bird sightings into the online citizen science database eBird, my observations of common species known already to occur in my area at this time of year are accepted and treated as genuine.

If, however, I report something highly unusual either for my geographic location or the time of year, my observation will be flagged and someone from their records oversight committee will contact me for additional details. If I have ancillary data supporting my sighting, such as a diagnostic photograph, it is then likely that my record will be accepted and included in the database. These days without the photography pretty much anything unusual gets tossed out.

If, however however, I report something currently undescribed by science and not a species recognized by the ICZN, then there really is no ability for me to have that record included in any kind of database without a physical specimen from which the new species can be described.

None of this precludes amateurs from making important contributions! In fact, the entire point of citizen science endeavors like eBird is to outsource data collection to amateurs and give them a sense of participation in science and conservation. One need not be a scientist to take a photograph. One need not be a scientist to hit a bigfoot with one's snowplow.

Do you want to blow a cryptozoologist's mind? Point out to them that both gorilla species were discovered by amateurs who were not looking for gorillas.

 

[Zippy Omicron]

Brazil 1905 sighting

Parcher, you are correct on the point that it is a claim. However, you and I weren't there. So I can't make a declarative statement on whether this observation event was a case of mistaken identity or not, or a hoax or not, or should be written off immediately or not. And alas, neither can you. (Such an argument construct can be applied to research in any scientific field of endeavor, including in quantum physics--why would you believe what a scientist claims to have eyewitnessed/measured/concluded, if you weren't there? Semantics it is, but I would be careful about what kind of brush, and how large that brush stroke is, that you wish to use to defend your argument.)

Now one might say that in science, the way things are done to deal with the "verification issue" is that the experiments can be repeated, and see if the results are the same or different. Yes. But this cannot always be done--especially if one is out in nature observing animals. One is observing while out in nature, and so what scientists attempt to do is see if the creatures can be observed under similar circumstances in likewise similar geographical locations. But even sometimes that can't be done either. Some animals only live in one small geographical segment or area. Rare animals like the Javan rhino. Snow leopard in the Himalayas. Or the alleged sightings of the Ivory billed woodpecker here in the States in the last few years or so. Etc.

Dinwar, if you want to attempt to critique my guess-timation of how much of the animal kingdom I know, be my guest. That doesn't disprove the concept that most people would know (one way or the other) whether they were observing an animal known to science, or one that was outside what I would term "the standard spectrum." Like I said, I know of no living creature with an 8-foot neck that lives in the water. These two scientists reported that they had. And not for 2 or 10 or 17 or 30 seconds. Several minutes (or at least according to what Matt Bille reported about the event). And yes, I might be able to figure out a giant squid carcass as being that--I have seen numerous photos of them now (for example, carcasses of ones that are being preserved in New Zealand, if memory serves--they even had a special on PBS here in th States last year about one of those preserved specimens which I did indeed view), and even seen some of the Japanese footage of one that was caught on a line a couple of years back that is accessible on the Web.

What I am currently attempting to do is acquire from the Zoological Society of London (yes, they still exist today) a copy of the original sighting report. If I am successful in obtaining a copy of this report, I will post the contents of it here to this thread for all to read and evaluate.

I am not willing to engage in mere thought experiments on this idea that two scientists observed an animal uncatalogued by science down in the environs of Brazil, and then dismiss it out of hand--because the description is of what they term/claim a "Sea Serpent." And especially if we have an actual report of the event extant that might be possible to access. I am engaging in attempting to acquire this. Perhaps others who are skeptical (and it is indeed a-okay to be skeptical--but from where I stand skepticism has to be based/tempered on having evaluated the data about the event first--from the original source if at all possible) should participate and track down materials also, and not be mere arm-chair generals. The book mentioned in Matt Bille's article was written by one of the eyewitnesses and appeared in 1930. I would urge Dinwar or Parcher or Correa Neto to track that volume down, and see how things are described, and in what context. And yes, I even encourage everyone to obtain a copy of the original 1906 report themselves in addition.

The more participation, the more evidence gathered, the better the potential/possiblity that we can accurately evaluate the data. And yes, even come to well-informed conclusions about the event.

But from where I stand, we do not have that in hand as of yet. That's why I am willing to engage in a further permutation about this.

 

[MikeG]

..........my observations of common species known already to occur in my area at this time of year are accepted and treated as genuine.

If, however, I report something highly unusual either for my geographic location or the time of year, my observation will be flagged and someone from their records oversight committee will contact me for additional details. If I have ancillary data supporting my sighting, such as a diagnostic photograph, it is then likely that my record will be accepted and included in the database. ...........

A couple of years ago near the Kafue river in Zambia I made the most northerly ever observation of the African Black Footed Cat. I had a 5 or six minute long encounter at very close quarters (3 or 4 metres), and although I didn't have my camera available, I took notes, and did a couple of sketches at the time. It was dusk, and the cat was in my car headlights, just in front of the vehicle.

The cat is well known but rarely seen, (it is nocturnal, and tiny) but this observation was about 400 miles north of its known range.

When I returned to Britain, I asked around until I found the name of the group studying the animal, and made contact with them in South Africa. I reported the sighting. They sent me photos, including that of the quite similar African Wild cat. The sub-adult is sometimes mistaken for an African Black Footed Cat. I was able to distinguish easily, and to provide details of the sighting, and the local environment, including the location of the nearest termitaria. I'm quite familiar with the African Wild Cat, and my notes dismissed it as a possibility because of the markings.

Now, the group studying the cat accept my sighting, and it has been recorded......but.....the official range of the cat hasn't been adjusted. It will be noted as "suspected" north of the Zambezi, but until or unless a really good photo is taken, a corpse turns up, or some other really good sightings verify mine, my sighting goes into the "hmmm, interesting" category. To date, no-one else has seen it in Zambia.

And that's how it should be. Interesting report, unverified. Something for the researchers to follow up on if they can, but nothing to get definitive about.

Same for the mystery object at sea.

Mike

That was a helluva great evening. I saw the cat immediately after seeing half a dozen penant-winged night-jars in full breeding plumage, and the biggest bull sable I've ever seen.

 

[Zippy Omicron]

The actual Zoological Society of London Report on the 1905 Brazil sighting

I have managed to obtain the original report of the 1905 sighting of the (alleged) “sea serpent.” I am going to thank the London Zoological Society for moving with such alacrity to get this report to me in less than several hours to me, and it was sent to me in PDF format via e-mail. As I stated in a previous posting, I will share its contents with you. And I will state here I do indeed encourage reading, evaluation, and subsequent commentary.

I have here in hand the report of the actual eyewitnessed event back in 1905 as it appeared in the Society’s Proceedings journal. This account diverges somewhat in some places from Matt Bille’s recording of the event, and it includes much more data than what appeared in Matt Bille’s article. The original (first) sighting does not have a timetable attached to it—but based on the description of the unfolding events, I think we can say with a quite decent confidence level that it had to have been for at least the better part of one minute, perhaps slightly longer (this is based on the detailed description, in which there are fairly exact dimensions quoted). The second incident is described as taking place over several minutes. The yacht apparently was one of the larger ones, as evidenced by the presence of a “third mate.” (Not merely a captain, or a captain and a “first mate,” or a captain and a “first” and “second” mate.) I am not going to provide a copy of the illustration, as the Society’s librarian wished to discourage me from reproducing it, via her comments that came with the PDF file. But if anyone wants a copy of the report, the Society’s library has a publicly available e-mail, and you can contact them yourself, if you are interested.

There is also some difference in the two eyewitnesses' reports of what they saw during the first incident (perhaps due to the fact one was looking at it via binoculars, while the other perhaps did not), but overall, the main facts were stated about the same. But the differences are noteworthy.


This can be termed an eyewitness report, and it also includes a hand drawing (in ink) of the creature (by Michael J. Nicoll) which appears with the text, taking up one entire page, showing the creature with its head and neck out of the water (moving from right to left), as well as its squarish-like frill (on second page of the report). The illustration is in black-and-white. What follows is the complete text of the report.



Proceedings of the London Zoological Society 1906, No. XLVII., page 720 onwards

“….


“7. Description of an unknown Animal seen at Sea off the Coast of Brazil. By EGB Meade-Waldo, FZS, and Michael J. Nicoll, FZS.

[Received June 19, 1906.]

(Text Figure 114.)

The following are accounts of a large marine animal (text-fig. 114, p.720) seen off the coast of Brazil, copied from the journals made by us during our cruise in the Earl of Crawford’s yacht ‘The Valhalla’—

“On Dec. 7th, 1905, at 10.15 AM, I was on the poop of the ‘Valhalla’ with Mr. Nicoll, when he drew my attention to an object in the sea about 100 yards from the yacht; he said: ‘Is that the fin of a great fish?’ I looked and immediately saw a large fin or frill sticking out of the water, dark seaweed-brown in colour, somewhat crinkled at the edge. It was apparently about 6 feet in length and projected from 18 inches to 2 feet from the water. I could see, under the water to the rear of the frill, the shade of a considerable body. I got my field-glasses on to it (a powerful pair of Goerz Treider), and almost as soon as I had them on the frill, a great head and neck rose out of the water in front of the frill; the neck did not touch the frill in the water, but came out of the water in front [the word “front” italicized in original text] of it, at a distance of certainly not less than 18 inches, probably more. The neck appeared about the thickness of a slight man’s body, and from 7 to 8 feet was out of the water; head and neck were all about the same thickness. The head had a very turtle-like appearance, as had also the eye. I could see the line of the mouth, but we were sailing pretty fast, and quickly drew away from the object which was going very slowly. It moved its neck from side to side in a peculiar manner: the colour of the head and neck was dark brown above, and whitish below—almost white, I think. When first seen it was about level with the poop of the yacht, and on the starboard side. I made it out by the char to be in about S. lat. 7 [degrees] 4 [minutes], long. 34 [degrees] 20 [minutes], but I think this is not quite correct. Mr. Nicoll got the correct position from the captain. The depth of the water where we saw it was about 300 fathoms, but quickly went to as much as 1300 fathoms. Since I saw this creature I consider on reflection that it was probably considerably larger than it appeared at first, as I proved that objects, the size with which I was well acquainted appear very much smaller than they really are when see on the ocean at a similar distance with nothing to compare them with.” EGB Meade-Waldo.

“At 10.15 AM on Thursday, December 7, 1905, when in lat. 7 [degrees] 14 [minutes] S., long. 34 [degrees] 25 [minutes] W., in a depth of from 322 to 1340 fathoms, Meade-Waldo and I saw a most extraordinary creature about 100 yards from the ship and moving in the same direction, but very much slower than we were going. At first, all that we could see was a dorsal fin about four feet long sticking up about two feet from the water; this fin was of a brownish-black colour and much resembled a gigantic piece of ribbon seaweed. Below the water we could indistinctly see a very large brownish-black patch, but could not make out the shape of the creature. Every now and then the fin entirely disappeared below the water. Suddenly an eel-like neck about six feet long and the thickness of a man’s thigh, having a head shaped like that of a turtle, appeared in front of the fin. This head and neck, which were of the same colour above as the fin, but of a silvery-white below, lashed up the water with a curious wriggling movement. After this it was so far astern of us that we could make out nothing else.

“During the next fourteen hours we ‘went about’ twice and at about 2 AM the following day (Dec. 8th), in lat. 7 [degrees] 19 [minutes] S., long. 34 [degrees] 04 [minutes] W., the first and third mates, Mr. Simmonds and Mr. Harley, who were on the bridge at the time, saw a great commotion in the water. At first they thought it was a rock wash about 100-150 yards away on the port side, just aft of the bridge, but they soon made out that it was something moving and going slightly faster than the ship, which at that time was doing about 8 ½ knots. Mr. Simmonds hailed the deck, and one of the crew who was on the ‘look-out’ saw it too. Although there was a bright moon at the time they could not make out anything of the creature itself, owing to the amount of wash it was making; but they say that from the commotion in the water it looked as if a submarine was going along just below the surface. They both say most emphatically that it was not a whale, and that it was not blowing, nor have they ever seen anything like it before. After they had watched it for several minutes it ‘sounded’ off the port bow, and they saw no more of it.” Michael J. Nicoll.

…”

 

[smartcooky]

This is something I'm curious about: if there's no single scientific method, then what does it mean in those textbooks when they talk about something called "the scientific method"? I've seen it before. What's up with it?

And if there's no such thing as "the" scientific method, there still must be some way to distinguish science from nonscience and pseudo-science (i.e. "woo"). So what classifies a method or a body of research as "science"?

Each individual science might have its own methods of dealing with new discoveries and hypotheses, (several in fact) but there is still a general framework that any real scientific endeavour uses:

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/scien...ic_method.shtml#overviewofthescientificmethod

I know its a children's science website, but that doesn't make it any less valid

 

[The Shrike]

Very cool - thanks for tracking this down, Zippy.

By my reading, the account can be attributed to (in no particular order):

1) Hallucination, illusion, power of suggestion
2) Tall tale made up, whole cloth
3) Observation of novel object, e.g, submarine
4) Observation of mundane object in weird situation, e.g., a tree
5) Observation of known creature mistaken for sea serpent, e.g., whales (especially ones with penises.)
6) Observation of species still unknown to science, closely matching description provided.

Note that I am not convinced that what the crew reported at 2 am is the same thing the biologists reported the previous day. We shouldn't assume those events are linked. I also disagree with the crew's statements that it couldn't have been a whale because they didn't see or hear it spray. I can envision scenarios in which this might not be conspicuous.