Comments on: Death by Sea Serpent?

By: jdwhitcomb

jdwhitcomb — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:55:17 +0000

The March 9th suggestions by MattBille–shark attack or ship running them down–seem only reasonable if the survivor had a long-term mental health issue: something that would cause him not only to report a large sea monster soon after the tragedy, but continue to maintain that account for some time. Neither sharks nor ships would cause this detailed eyewitness-account of a creature with a 12-foot-long neck.

Let’s first examine the acccount with the assumption that the witness is telling the truth, at least about what he believes that he experienced. Fog rarely seems impenetrable indefinitely; even a very dense fog may not last all night. If I understand correctly, the witness reported seeing the creature “in the fog.” Therefore at that particular moment, the fog was not dense enough to prevent that observation. If we have been informed correctly, this night had a moon that was close to full. Therefore nothing about fog IN GENERAL or the darkness of night IN GENERAL can discredit that part of the account.

I maintain the immense improbability that the witness was both mentally healthy and telling lies. What sane person would make up such a story?

By: MattBille

MattBille — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:10:22 +0000

I can’t follow jdwhitcomb’s logic. There are other possible explanations, such as a shark attack that might have panicked and scattered the survivors in the fog, or a ship running them down. If – IF – McCleary was lying, he was presumably afriad he was going to be blamed for some negligent act, whether or not he actually committed one. Full moon or not, it continues to puzzle me that, if there was a fog, he saw his animal so well. One thing I think we can rule out is a mistaken identification: he either saw an unclassified marine animal, or he is lying.
On another topic, I’m still impressed by the Helm sighting, even if his clearly mammalian creature had no connection to the McCleary case. The account in Helm’s book just rings true for me (in a way McCleary’s story does not). Helm and his wife were familiar with seals and sea lions, and his description of a head resembling a big cat’s seems like something different. I would, of course, be more impressed if there were other sightings that offered similar descriptions from the same region.

By: jdwhitcomb

jdwhitcomb — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:27:00 +0000

I agree with Snoggett about making up a sea serpent story. There is no doubt that his four friends died. But the only thing that seems left for an explanation (other than death by sea serpent) is multiple murders. What would Sherlock Holmes say? When you eliminate the impossible, what is left, however improbable, is the answer. It seems impossible that McCleary would make up a sea serpent story to try to hide murdering his friends; therefore, the sea serpent story is correct.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:05:03 +0000

I don’t have a copy of the full article, but one of the online excerpts gives the names of three victims: Eric Sullay, Brad Rice, and Larry Bill. McCleary’s age is also a little fuzzy, but some of the sccounts refer to “boys,” so perhaps that is in fact THE Edward McCleary.

Matt

By: jchip

jchip — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 18:23:12 +0000

How old was McCleary supposed to have been when this event happened? There is one Edward B. McCleary listed in Florida on Zabasearch that would have been 16 in 1962

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:00:12 +0000

I read of this account in a book in our university library some time back that catalogued all sorts of sea encounters. It was very interesting, and I think it is about the only case I’ve read of where a person was actually killed by a USO.

By: busterggi

busterggi — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 22:29:41 +0000

Why do we have no names for the other supposed victims?

Found or not, their identities shouldn’t be secret.

And citing Hovind as a source sure isn’t making it more believable.

Nope still not buying it.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:03:02 +0000

Some people here have asked why he would make up this kind of story and I have to because people do this kind of stuff all the time. People can be untruthful or embellish tales without having a reason. I think we should be very careful to not take his tale seriously on the basis of “why would he make it up?”. The lack of a reason does not mean he is telling the truth. I find several things abut this account suspicious. He was out there in the fog, obviously scared for his life, yet he was able to give an incredibly detailed account of the creatures appearance down to the color of its eyes and the length of its teeth. Now maybe the teeth would stand out, but I think in most instances, someone in this situation would not be observing the creature with this kind of meticulousness but rather trying to get out of there. Even with no fog, this is an amazingly detailed account. Second, they found a body that was drowned but we have no information on how he drowned. If he was held under by an animal like one poster said, then there would most certainly be some sort of marks on the body to indicate this as most likely the creature used its teeth. The article did not mention this so I guess this means he just drowned and was not killed by a creature. I think it is an interesting story but the only evidence, the body, does not seem to back up the witnesses sequence of events. Why would he make up the story? I don’t know. But I think there are a lot of other factors to be looked into, evidence to be examined before his story is taken at face value.

By: theo

theo — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:03:00 +0000

Matt Bille writes: “The McClatchie case sounds a lot like a reporter trying to sensationalize a shark attack”, but was that the case?

Several newspapers stated that a barracuda was more generally held as the culprit, although they expressed their uncertainty. As to the shark theory – that was refuted for several reasons which sound quite logical. Simply said, there was an element of doubt. A star swimmer who was lethally attacked by a shark was already sensational enough. By referring to a sea serpent as the possible culprit, there was not an element of sensationalising, rather, it was a risk taking. For this, one has to understand the dynamics of sea serpent reporting in the 19th and 20th centuries.

But – what really killed that poor girl is not the issue; the issue is that this is the first modern account of a victim of an alleged sea serpent. The case clearly precedes the one Bille cites; both are equally uncertain as to their veracity and truthfullness. So, when it comes to the statement that “there is only one known case of a victim of an alleged sea serpent”, that is obviously in error.

regards,

Theo

By: kaiju

kaiju — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:00:50 +0000

At the creationist website we find the following: In late 1998, I was preaching in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. A lady came up to me after the service, and I told this story, and she said, "Mr. Hovind, my name is Val Bill. My step-son, Larry Bill, was one of the boys that was eaten." She said his dad was involved in search and rescue for the president. He was real high up in Navy Search and Rescue. And he was in charge of trying to find his own son and they searched for days and didn’t find a clue. One body was found. One boy apparently panicked and drowned. The other three apparently were eaten. You can call Val Bill. Her address is 612 Powell Dr. N.E., Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547. You can write her a letter. I remember this story from many years ago and always wondered why it never got any attention. The only known animal that might be a candidate seems to me to be some kind of Pinniped. Might the wreck have been a territory the creature was defending?