Let’s not lose sight of the fact that a sea monster is inarguably at LEAST as bizarre a thing to see. I’m thinking of Mr. Davies who argued with myself and others on Cryptomundo that it was unthinkable that orangutans could be a few hundred miles from where it’s believed their range extends to explain his team’s orang pendek sighting. A bipedal non-human primate unknown to man was obviously the more likely explanation. Now the initial DNA evidence testing is suggesting something very akin to an orangutan.

I suggested sturgeon because I couldn’t think of any other locally found creatures with “serrated backs”. Poster “ILovesnakes” has pointed out that some turtle species have rows of serrations. If one were to combine unusual elevated sea temperatures or currents, out of place turtles become candidates. Also, John Kirk didn’t say how many serrations he saw.
We – I at least – failed to spot the missing information on the sizes of the unidentified creatures. Jason Walton used the term Caddy in the title of his opening thread, and that conjures an image of something the size of the 3 metre Naden Harbor moose, but there is no actual estimate of size for the currently discussed creatures.

John Kirk refers to a “school” of creatures, but perhaps we are inferring some sort of family relationship where none exists. Would the word “group” be equally appropriate? Cetaceans (like humans) hunt and kill other creatures that they have no intention of eating, so there is no reason yet to assume that the unidentified creatures in this footage are a/ all the same species, b/ socially related, or c/ dinner guests.

In writing this, I was reminded that there are many different approaches to animal mysteries; Messrs Walton & Kirk are starting from an assumption that Cadborosaurus exists and that here is an encounter with a “herd” of them 2500 kilometres from home, while others like myself try to identify unusual events using what I have in the toolbox of zoology.

To each, his own.

My money remains on sturgeon being the main players, but not necessarily the only ones. Your attributed suspicions about the “two men” are not relevant.

If you can’t tell if there are 10 or 15 of these supposed creatures, how are we supposed to take the rest of the observations seriously?

That’s a bit out of line. He said between 10 and 15. It’s perfectly normal to have a rough approximation without having a spot on actual figure. Anybody who has ever watched a school of dolphins or pod of orcas on the surface will know you can’t always make a precise total tally.

Between 10 and 15 sounds like a perfectly reasonable observation to me.

Yeah, I feel it was just an incorrect usage of the word here as the post reads nothing like ‘Former’. Perhaps JK meant ‘esteemed collegue’ which is not an unusual misuse of the word.

I found an apropos article on this here which states in part;

“I assumed that “my erstwhile colleague” (the phrase I usually heard the word in) meant “my esteemed colleague,” but it really means “my former colleague.” I wasn’t alone in this misunderstanding; many people misuse this word.”

Ah Google, I thank ye much.

Having said that, I have no quarrel with someone who sells their video or rights to data if it is done and used appropriately. Time will tell as tension mounts as to who and how it will be presented. When times are tough decisions are tough too. At least it didn’t go to the “Enquirer” or (gasp!) some overnight radio show with questionable motives haha.

Excellent info in these posts and comments.