17 Responses to “TWalden Replies”

1. shumway10973 responds: August 13th, 2009 at 1:33 pm

   As far as the thing on its head that moved I’m thinking something like the spitting dinosaur in Jurassic Park, the one that took out the villain. Folds of skin on some sort of horned appendage (or something that resembled horns). Was it all over the head, down the middle or on both sides (where ears should be)? I usually draw my water serpents/dragons with fin like ears. I have always thought that when submerged these ears would close, keeping water out of the ears. Maybe, if they are large enough, they could be the mechanism that helps direct the head in the water. Did you see a “fin” running down its back at all?

2. cryptidsrus responds: August 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

   Thanks to Ms. Walden for replying.

   To be honest—the description and sketch do not give off a “Dinosaur” vibe.

   Could be an undiscovered species that is somehow descended from the Dinos, though.

   The description DOES match some historical accounts of Sea Serpents. Particularly medieval accounts.

   The sketch is vaguely reminiscent of the Sea Serpents one sees in Renaissance and Medieval Bestiaries. Not totally sure, of course, but it is worth conjecturing.

3. SIRUPAPERS responds: August 13th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

   Parts of Ms. Walden’s description remind me of how the Cadborosaurus is described. Also, San Fan is not that far south from Cadboro Bay (as far as ocean going species are concerned) so this seems a pretty safe call. Of all the cryptids Caddy has some of the best evidence to support it and deserves a better look than it generally gets. It might just help us figure out many of the lake monster and sea serpent sightings.

4. Quacker1 responds: August 13th, 2009 at 6:18 pm

   Well, shumway, the dinosaur you’re referencing was a Dilophosaurus, with whom a few creative liberties were taken. The ink spitting and frill in particular were fabrications. As has been stated multiple times in relation to other lake and river monsters and serpents, the chances of these creatures being dinosaurs, plesiosaurs, icthyosaurs, or descendants of any of these groups is highly unlikely, as the fossil record and evolution of many of these families is well understood. In addition, the striking angle of undulation in the serpent’s body doesn’t speak towards anything with a skeletal structure I know of. While the extreme undulation in this picture may be a slight exaggeration for the purpose of better describing the beast, plesiosaurs especially, (and I’m using plesiosaurs as an example because they are commonly cited as serpent explanations), wouldn’t have been able to curve their necks up and down hardly at all, much less at such an extreme angle as is shown in this picture. While tens of millions of years of evolution may have added this feature, it seems unlikely. Few animals undulate like the one drawn here, so either this animal is a brand new type of unknown animal, or it’s some large invertebrate, perhaps a slug of some type. However, invertebrates of that size require water with high oxygen content, and I doubt the water in this area has high enough oxygen content to support a colony of super-massive sea slugs.

   While I’m not trying to speak against Ms. Walden’s credibility, this picture seems to be a very cliche visage of what is commonly thought of as a sea or lake serpent. In reality, it’s hard for me to imagine what sort of creature would create a silhouette like this. It’s definitely a mystery; I’ll leave it at that.

5. springheeledjack responds: August 13th, 2009 at 10:47 pm

   Okay, I’ve got a question too, that is sort of relevant. On several occasions “protusions” have been described on the tops of heads as in this case–giraffe like, horns, etc.

   I have always been at a loss to explain this…are we indeed looking at some sort of horns, or some sort of ear like appendage, maybe used for sensory functions? OR something else entirely. Personally, I know very little about such “antennae” like things in mammals or other animals. Like the giraffe…do those serve a functional purpose or are they leftover from a bygone day.

   Snails have eye stalks, but most water cryptids have reports of eyes that are not at the end of stalks.

   It seems to me that the more discussions we have on these extremeties, and the appearance, the more we may be able to pare down the possibilities and figure out what we are dealing with here (and no, if it was undulating, then it was not a log…:)

6. mystery_man responds: August 14th, 2009 at 2:10 am

   springheeledjack- I can probably answer some of your questions concerning giraffe “horns.”

   Giraffe actually do not have true horns. True horns are made of keratin around a core of living bone. Neither do giraffes have antlers, which are bone outcroppings that are shed from time to time. Giraffes have bony protuberances known as ossicones . These are permanent outcroppings of bone on the skull, formed from ossified cartilage, which are covered with hair. On adult males, the hair is sometimes worn away at the ends. These are also found on the okapi.

   Here’s an image.

   As to why giraffes have them, it is not known with absolute certainty, but there are hypotheses. It is known that the ancestors of giraffes had antlers, so it is possible that these ossicones are the last vestiges of anchors for antlers that no longer exist. Modern day giraffes do not use their antlers to fight, but rather wrap necks and bash each other with the back of the head or forehead. There are even bony outcroppings located on the back of giraffe heads and above the eyes for this purpose. Perhaps the antlers in giraffes were lost over time, and all that remains is the core anchors which we see as the hair covered ossicones. So essentially, they are an evolutionary byproduct of a bygone day, as you put it.

   There is also the possibility that these ossicones serve some purpose that biologists are not yet aware of.

   As for what these protuberances could be in relation to sea or lake monsters, I think it is difficult to say with the information we have. There are a myriad of aquatic animals that have a large range of various spines, bony protrusions, antennae, eyestalks, and other outcroppings. The purposes and structure of these are almost as varied as the different types that are seen. Those seen on aquatic monsters could be any number of things. I think we would need more information and insight into the habits and ecology of these creatures in order to come to any conclusion as to what the reported “horns” are.

   I do agree that it is an interesting topic of discussion and speculation and I’m glad you put your question out there.

7. dogu4 responds: August 14th, 2009 at 7:01 am

   Alwasy enjoy re-visiting the Clark brother’s claimed sighting for a number of reasons. For one thing I’d lived in the Bay Area, and in SF’s Marina area near where the Clark’s made one of their shore-side sightings just off of the St Francis yacht club, and have met one of the Clarks down there in the early 90s and heard Mr Clark tell me his account. I don’t know if I’ve met Tisa, but SF is a small town in many ways, and I’m pretty sure we have friends in common. I’ve also spent a lot of time looking at and studying/thinking about the bay and its physical properties and marvelling at it’s expressions of nature, both conspicuous and subtle.
   One thing that can be said for the Bay and Golden Gate is that it is different. I don’t know of any urban environment where the deep ocean is so immediately upon the city. The estuary through which the central valley drains is a feature that brings the ecology of the deeper sediments that collect along the California coast into proximity with the inter-tidal, bringing them together and I suspect expressing some synergistic affinities about which we know only a little.
   I too have driven past that relatively shallow area just south of Candlestick innumerable times, and know just where Tisa must have been to have observed whatever it was that she saw.
   Though I’ve never seen what the Clarks and Tisa claim to have seen, I have seen an otter at the mouth of Mission Creek (a section of surface water that is almost impossible to imagine suporting creatures we so initimately associated with wild shoreline habitat), and while doing some naturalist/interpretive work on Alcatraz had many enounters with flocks of birds, flood debris, and the complex patterns of the currents as they sweep through and over the unseen topography below.
   That the Clarks and Tisa could have seen a large creature that for reasons unknown had made its way into waters that to its animal insticts seemed like an ideal place to approach the surface for an instinctive need such as reproduction or migration is kinda believable. What kinds of size-indeterminate creatures are using the alluvial fans along the continental break as habitat are unknown and like a lot of the ocean bottom, un-examined.
   As curious as I am, though, and as willing as I am to consider cryptozoological explanations from a completely naturalistic point of view, I have to admit to also seeing a few things in the bay that had me slack jawed and rubbing my eyes, scratching my head, trying to figure out what I’d seen, particularly on Acatraz after heavy rain when trees, branches and other flood debris would drift by the island in interesting ways, doing interesting stuff, like changing direction, rising and sinking, decorated with other bits of flotsam…
   So, I don’t know, and some of the parallels the Clarks have drawn to other sightings leave me less than convinced on their more distant sighting/photos. I sure wish they’d had a camera when they had their sighting up close and near shore 25 years ago.
   Anyone who has the opportunity to gaze out upon the big waters adjacent to land are fortunate for many reasons, but one that is to me most intriguing is the window of opportunity that the situation presents to gain the knowledge of the unknown deep as it merges with the coastal environment creating the most diverse and energy/food rich ecotone on earth. If there was to be a natural place that a rarely surfacing big active instinctively driven creature might naturally be compelled to visit, places like the Golden Gate and the SF Bay would be a prime example.
   I always hold on to the possibility of returning to live again in SF, or Suasalito, or Alameda and indispensible as a rain and jacket with fleece, and a MUNI fast pass I’d be sure to have with me a good spotting scope and a camera. Keep looking. Even if one never see what the Clarks and Tisa saw, one can be sure of seeing other remarkable and possibly even more unusual/exciting things out just beyond our reach.

8. shumway10973 responds: August 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am

   Quacker1, we are talking about something that has probably escaped the fossil record for one main reason…It looks to still be alive. The fossil record is just that a record of fossils. We are in no position to find the remains of these creatures, which if one dies and falls to the ocean floor without being eaten and torn apart, we will still not find it. Look at all the animals alive today that are not apart of the fossil record. We are talking about a totally separate creature, a living dinosaur (I use that word simply because of its size and its prehistoric look. As far as we know it could even be some sort of fish.) All I was saying is that if you look at the “classic sea serpent” drawings there are fin like things around the head that are perfect for ears. There is usually also a long dorsal fin running the length of the whole creature. I have spent a lot of time looking at these drawings as a child. They always did have an “eel” feeling about them. Look here’s what we know: The thing described above is an unknown serpentine like thing of great size that lives in the water. That is all.

9. praetorian responds: August 14th, 2009 at 11:04 am

   Ever since I read Peter Costello’s “In Search of Lake Monsters” many years ago, I’ve always been partial to a pinniped identity for lake and sea monsters. Loren’s recent posting on the upcoming paper by Darren Naish and Michael Woodley that identifies three possible variations of large long-necked seals as likely culprits gave me hope that the mystery, in part anyway, may be pretty close to a solution.

   When you take into account sighting conditions, sexual dimorphism, and maturity-related differences I don’t think there are many sightings that the super long-necked pinniped ID can’t cover. There’s nothing in the Walden account that makes it unique in that respect.

10. sschaper responds: August 14th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    I wouldn’t totally rule out a giant sea snail, either. Particularly if it normally lives at great depths, feeding off ocean floor organic debris.

11. Erik Knatterud responds: August 14th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    I’d like to comment on these protuberances, ears, flaps or whatever they are. In Sweden and Norway they have been observed a very few times on sea serpents, some sort of appendage attached to the back and high on the side of the head. In both cases in Norway the animals were sighted at short range, in a cove, the other near a rowing boat, and both resembled vaguely upright “ears”, not like long mule or moose ears, but rather modest sized ears compared to the head. In Sweden an animal approached two girls at the shore and erected these “ears” and moved or flapped them, producing a peculiar rattling sound, so it is possible that their function is of communication and can fold back lying tight against the neck when not used. Being aquatic creatures they would hardly have open ears that water can intrude, but ears covered by membranes.
    These “ears” do not resemble the “fins” seen by the Clark brothers which looked more like fish fins.

12. springheeledjack responds: August 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

    MM–thanks for the info…that is kind of where i was going with the giraffe horns, and I think that is one possibility. Like you said, we really have no idea until we get something solid to go on, but that’s why I like discussing these things–gives me ideas to research, others a chance to enlighten and the rest a chance to think.

    Erik K–that’s interesting too, and something I have wondered about…with all of the sightings over the decades, the “ears” are not often observed…or at least reported and I have wondered whether the whatever-they-ares are used for a specific purpose (whether it is sensory in nature or a communicative device), and only extend when there is a need.

    More good food for thought.

    Thanks!!!

13. Erik Knatterud responds: August 14th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

    ”Horns” and ”ears”

    There actually is one single Norwegian sighting of a head with something odd attached to the head, call it horns, protuberances or whatever. Two boys went fishing in a lake and the one boy detected a presumably resting or sleeping animal. He decided to put a large stone on the beasts head in the shallow water, then tie it to a tree. Naturally the creature shook off the boulder, raised its head and hissed at the boy who was virtually standing in water beside the animal. When initially lying half submerged and resting the boy noticed that the creature’s head had two strange stalks, one on each side of the head a little distance behind the eyes, and at the end of the stems were a bulb the size of a marble. These strange appendages moved constantly when the head was still, I would imagine like the eye stalks of a snail.
    Further on the ”ears”, the creature in the cove was startled on land, fled through the weed and showed these weird erect ears when swimming away. The Swedish case, an October 1893 incident well documented in a newspaper. Two girls were heating water and doing laundry near the shore. The creature swam towards them, gazed and stayed around for one and a half hour. One time it came close and raised its head above the surface. Its ”ears” were tucked tightly against the neck, and when it raised them the rattling noise was produced. Finally the girls pelted it with stones to make it move away.
    When these creatures periscope their necks and head and obviously does some scouting or listening, no such neck frills are ever reported.

14. sfseaserpent responds: August 14th, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    We found Tisa’s observation that the animal she saw had a possible mane and horns of some type very interesting because in all of the close sightings we have had none of the animals had a mane or horns. In one of our close sightings(35-50 yards) the animal had a baby wrapped around its upper body behind its head exactly like the red stripe of a barber pole wraps around the pole. We believe Tisa is giving an accurate description of what she saw so we are beginning to think it may be possible that Tisa saw a male animal and that we have seen females. One of the things we are absolutely certain about this animal is that it is an unknown species since it moves in a fashion that no animal known to have ever existed can move.

15. springheeledjack responds: August 14th, 2009 at 11:15 pm

    sfseaserpent got me to thinking too–that it could be something equated with sexual dimorphism as to why the horns/stalks/etc are not always seen or observed.

    The other problem is with so little information we do not know if we are dealing with one species of animal across the world or several, in which case, the stalks/horns/etc could be specific to a species or a specific type of animal (not up on my genus and terminology classifications), so AGAIN, could be apples and oranges. Though I am of the mind that there is probably more than one type we are dealing with–heuvelmanns went along those lines of thinking, and I would agree with him. I think he suggested half a dozen or more possibilities.

    Back to the sub-subject at hand, at least from the Scandinavian perspective, we might be dealing with some sort of sensory organs…whether it is ears for sound, some sort of vibration sensors, or communication. And perhaps there is a tie in with what Walden saw.

16. mystery_man responds: August 15th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Well, I’ll say one thing about the horns, ossicones, or whatever kind of protuberances are present on these creatures; it would help if we had some idea of what sort of animal we are even looking at here. The list of unusual suspects runs the gamut from mammal, to reptile, to fish, to giant slug. We can’t even be sure of what classification of creature we are dealing with here, so it is difficult to come to a consensus as to what the outcroppings on the head might be.

    I will say that I agree with springheeledjack in that if we are indeed dealing with unknowns here, then most likely there is more than just one type of creature behind the worldwide eyewitness accounts of sea monsters. A variety of different species and types of organism could be involved. We could have cases where one is a giant slug, another a sea mammal, and yet another a reptilian prehistoric survivor. In each case the head protuberances could be completely different in form and function. It would also explain why not all of these creatures are described as having horns or whatever in the first place. It really likely is comparing apples and oranges.

    I think it would be hard to try to come up with any one, all encompassing hypothesis on the head appendages, especially without more information.

17. springheeledjack responds: August 15th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    I’m with you, MM.

    Right now there are waaaaaaaaay too many unknowns to even begin to make solid hypotheses—the sightings are too sparse from too many different locales to make and real generalizations or even solid theories.

    I think that is why USO’s are so intriguing and fun to hunt for me…it’s the unknowns and possibilities that keep me investigating:) AND when we do eventually find out some hard data, I have no doubt it will clear up a lot of little questions like the one we have been dealing with here:)

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|