Comments on: The Cadborosaurus Wars

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 20:51:14 +0000

While it is a theory, it’s still all that it is, empirically speaking.

Since they didn’t see it, all that it is, is a possibility. However, from the acount I read, it didn’t behave like a fish. Even looking at the two drawings, there are distinct differences: the flippers, the lack of a back fin. The picture of the “Caddy” leads more to the idea that it was something undulating, which certainly couldn’t have been a piper fish.

Not to mention the sounds it made. And I’m still going with the eye witness’s expertise when it comes to the fact that they saw something out of their normal experience. They had a lot of hours in on fishing, enough to give them benefits doubt.

I’ve got problems with anyone speaking as “confidently” as they are when they’re working off of information years after the fact. I’ll accept that it’s a theory or a possibility, but they certainly haven’t proved (or even come close) the identity of what was captured briefly and put in a bucket.

By: Redrose999

Redrose999 — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:51:32 +0000

I kind of like the idea of a new species of pipefish.

By: John Kirk

John Kirk — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:39:21 +0000

The mini creature captured by Captain William Hagelund was no pipefish. First of all Hagelund knew it was not a fish. He was a whaling captain for many years and very familiar with BC’s aquatic life. Secondly, Hagelund said the mini Caddy swam with its head held out of the water which is something a pipefish can’t do. I have personally interviewed Captain Hagelund and he was adamant that this was an unknown species.
Messrs. Naish and Woodley created a table of 29 characteristics and Caddy has 23 of these and the pipefish sixteen. There is a difference of seven characteristics and in some areas there is no match such as the anal fin and the dorsal fin which a pipefish has, but Hagelund’s creature does not. Their own table does not support the juvenile creature being a pipefish.

By: nzcryptozoologist

nzcryptozoologist — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:47:52 +0000

Following this line of reasoning is it possible Cadborosaurus could be some form of unyet discovered giant Pipefish, living in cool watres gigantism would seem to make sense?

By: DWA

DWA — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:07:31 +0000

Is it just me?

Or does Cadborosaurus just have to be the name of a really good, really big candy bar?

By: Richard888

Richard888 — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 18:32:36 +0000

This sounds like a story I once read about the capture of a strange looking creature in the mini archipelago between Victoria and Vancouver. After capture the creature, that resembled a small serpent with long lateral flippers, was placed in a bucket of water until it could be given to a lab. But it began showing signs of extreme distress including shrills that made the capturer uncomfortable enough to eventually decide to release it. If the shrills are part of the story (and not something I invented later) how can they be explained if it was a fish?