Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Car Thief Steals Vehicle To Get To Auto-Theft Trial
3rd Annual California Dreaming Same-Sex Ballroom Dancing Competition
We were flipping through the channels over the weekend and caught a few minutes of a National Geographic show on Sea Monsters. So we stopped to watch-- we're big fans of Nessie. Towards the end of the show, a segment came up about something we hadn't heard before, that San Francisco has its very own Sea Monster right here in the Bay.
Or so claim two twins, the Clark Brothers. They first spied the thing in 1985 while sitting in their truck. The thing popped out of the ocean after chasing a few sea lions around and stared right at them. The brothers described the beastie as "large, black, snake-like.”
For the next twenty years, the brothers have been obsessed in proving that what they saw was indeed a sea monster, without much in the way of success. Then, in 2004, they caught on video, (a very grainy video-- see image above) what looks like could possibly be the monster's humps (it's humps, it's humps, it's lovely lady humps) as it swam through the Bay or maybe possibly a group of them.
The brothers sent the video out to photographic experts who confirmed that there's something possibly to it and that it might just be some sort of monster swimming through the Bay. However, the experts in question are seen as non-credible by some, partly because one of them is aligned with Creationist Science and those scientists are trying desperately to prove that there are dinosaurs still roaming the earth to show that dinosaurs chilled with Adam & Eve and were around much later than everyone thinks, just like the Bible says. On the National Geographic show, they showed another video expert who noticed a few birds flying in the foreground of the video and guessed that the humps in question were merely birds floating in the water.
There have been other sightings. In 1976, Tom D'Onofrio saw a "big and dark creature -- about 40 feet long." In 1983, a construction crew was working on Hwy 1 near Stinson when they also saw something peculiar.
Now the obvious question is why with all the thousands (millions?) of people who gaze upon the Bay, the only people who've seen the monster is the Clark twins, a construction crew, and an artist? One's first initial reaction is to wonder if the Clark's maybe had a little too much fun in the 60's if you know what we mean and we think you do. Or maybe people saw something that looked weird but figured since this is San Francisco, whatevs. On the other hand, apparently a similar beastie has been seen up and down the Pacific Northwest (particularly in British Columbia) and so the monster could just be cruising through the Bay on occasion to see the sights.
Regardless, we think the idea of a monster in our waters is kind of cool. If the thing ever turns out to be true, we can only imagine the big deal it'll be. We're sure the sea monster will be renamed something more politically correct (like evolutionary challenged). Maybe he'll be brought to Burning Man? Or as a minority, he'll be designated as such and so we'll see the beginnings of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Sea Monster Alliance?
As Fox Mulder would say, we want to believe.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Another underwater ally!
It's not about political correctness anymore. It's Corporate Branding, ala Golden Gate Ferries.
If the Sea Monster is found it's name will be sold to the highest bidder.
Sea Monster.Com?
Golden Palace Casino Monster?
Or how about Monster.com Monster?
Or Monster Monster? (i.e., sponsored by the fine folks that bring you overpriced Monster Cable).
Since SF is such a tourist draw, maybe it's Nessie on holiday.
haha! I've seen it too, commuting across the Bay Bridge. I figured that I just needed more coffee.
I am Bob Clark and my brother and I are who you were talking about in your article. We want to let you know that if people want more details about our sightings and the other west coast sightings of a sea serpent then they can visit our blog at http://home.access4less.net/~sfseaserpent/ . We also want you to know that we think it is incorrect to charactorize us as being "obsessed" for the last 20 years in trying to prove these animals exist. We had a definitive sighting on February 5, 1985 when we saw the entire animal except for the tail exposed above the surface of the water after it beached itself on a submerged rocking ledge only 20 yards from where we were parked in our car. For the next 2 years we staked out the location and had 7 more sightings. During the next 17 years we discussed our sightings with scientists and cryptozoologists but we were not running around "obsessed" with trying to prove to everyone these animals exist. In fact, we were doing the exact opposite. We only spoke to some of the eyewitnesses to other sightings (Tom D'Onofrio and Marlene Martin), scientists and some other people who were interested in the subject. It was not until January 24, 2004 that we had our next sighting. At that time we were able to take a 3 1/2 minute video of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay between Alcatraz and Angel Island. We had two in-depth anayses made of our video and both concluded that our video contains images of several large serpentine unknown marine animals. The first analysis was done by Clifford Paiva, who is an expert image analyst that has 30 years of experience as an expert image analyst for the U.S. Navy, and Dr. Harold S. Slusher who is a Physicist. The second analysis was done by Bruce Champagne. Both analyses can be downloaded at http://www.lochnessinvestigation.org/clarkbrothers.htm . Some skeptics have tried to discredit the Paiva/Slusher analysis by claiming it is skewed because they are supposedly "creationists". However, no one has been able to provide any evidence that the conclusion they reached as a result of the scientific tests they conducted on our video is incorrect. Skeptics have also tried to discredit Bruce Champagne's analysis claiming he is biased since he believes in the possibility that sea serpents exist. In the case of NG's "expert image analyst", Grant Fredericks, who concluded the objects in our video were only birds, he refuses to provide us with any supporting documentation for his conclusion so that other experts can examine it for its validity and he even refuses to communicate with us so we can ask him some questions about what can be seen in our video and how he reached his conclusion. At the time NG was making our segment of the program we informed them about the Paiva/Slusher analysis but they chose not to mention anything about it in the program and instead got their own "expert image analyst". We think it was misleading and unprofessional for NG not to mention the Paiva/Slusher analysis of our video which concluded the objects in our video were large serpentine unknown marine animals and instead just mention the Fredericks' analysis in order to make it appear that the Fredericks' analysis was the only one done.
This is Bob Clark again. I just want to correct an error in my previous post. The correct date that we took our 3 1/2 minute video of several sea serpents swimming in SF Bay is January 26, 2004 not January 24, 2004.