|
Sometimes, a topic that we've touched on in one of our log entries may need a little elaboration, or we may want to respond
in more formal fashion to feedback we get from readers. Whenever we feel it appropriate, we will post those types of essays
here.
On February 17, 1999 we interviewed Marlene Martin, the safety inspector for the Department of Transportation who was
supervising the work crew. Marlene told us there were actually 7 witnesses that she was aware of but two of them didn't want
to acknowledge having anything to do with the sighting that occurred on October 31, 1983. It began when she was called on
the radio by one of the workers who said something weird was swimming toward them from Duxbury point. She saw a "V"
shaped wake as it swam up to the beach 250 feet below them. At that point it was completly underwater. Then it made a "U"
turn and headed for the Farallones. As it swam away from the beach she saw 3 humps followed by part of a fourth. When it was
a quarter of a mile away it raised its neck 15 feet out of the water and started swishing about. It held its head up shaking
water all over and opened its mouth exposing many teeth. She remembered the eyes appeared to be a very dark red, not only
the pupil, but the whole eye. She had difficulty describing the shade of red, saying "Not a bloody red, but more of a
ruby red." She gave more details about the teeth saying it had, "alligator-like teeth all around the mouth".
We are still in contact with Marlene and hope to be able to provide you with more information about her Stinson Beach sighting
in the future...
On March 28, 1986, J. Richard Greenwell, Secretary of the INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF CRYPTOZOOLOGY, wrote to us saying "I
refer to your letter dated June 10, 1985, in which you sent copies of the reports by your brother and yourself concerning
your sighting of an unknown animal in San Francisco Bay. I must apologize for not having written sooner, but I wanted to get
some feedback to send you when I did write. I have studied your reports carefully, as well as the supporting documentation
which normally is not included in such reports. Thus, it has been very useful in the sense one can get a better handle on
what sort of animal you may have observed. On the other hand, such a determination has not been arrived at, as you can tell
from the enclosed comments by one of our board members, marine biologist, Forrest Wood, in San Diego. In fact, Mr. Wood concludes
the animal you saw, at least in terms of the way you described it, 'is an impossibility.' I should add Mr. Wood is quite sympathetic
to the idea of animals surviving today still unknown to science, particularly in marine environments, and he was quite impressed
with your backgrounds, and the details you provided. His conclusion is simply based on the difficulty he has encountered in
trying to reconcile the details you have provided with systematic zoology, and no way reflects on your personal veracity.
There really is not much more we can do with your report, other than summarize it in our quarterly newsletter. It will remain
in our society's files for future reference, and it will thus be available to other scholars and investigators. For that reason,
we very much appreciate your having taken the trouble to prepare the information and send it to us. I am enclosing membership
information on our Society, should you or your bother wish to become members. It might be interesting for you to keep abreast
of other such sightings around the world. My best wishes to you both, and again, thank you for having written to us about
this interesting case."
Included with his letter was the following report:
SIGHTING BY ROBERT AND WILLIAM CLARK, FEBRUARY 5, 1985
Comments
by Forrest G. Wood
Biosciences Department
U.S. Naval Ocean Systems Center
San Diego, California
"The creature reportedly propelled itself by forming four vertical loops which moved in a rapid 'whipping motion'
from just behind the head to the midsection. It had scales which appeared to be 'hexagonal or round in shape' and 'fairly
large' (William, not seen by Robert). However, the animal 'was oily or slimy in appearance' (William) and 'the whole animal
seemed to have a slimy look to the skin' (Robert). William reported seeing two fins on the left side of two adjacent loops,
and later 'four fins, two on each side of the midbody and opened in a stabilizing manner.' Robert mentions seeing only one
fin. However, the brothers' descriptions of the fins are in agreement:'...the fins were triangular in shape with the tip of
the triangle pointed away from the body and the base of the triangle attached to the midbody. They were weblike in appearance
and one side was serrated with each serration attached to the inner corner of the triangle by a ridge of bone or cartilage
in such a manner the whole fin could unfold in or out in a fanlike or accordion manner. The webbing between the ridges was
a thin membrane which appeared a yellow-green in color and translucent' (William). Robert: 'It was triangular in shape and
almost 18 inches high. It was equilateral. It looked like it was cartilage. It had a paper thin membrane between the ribs,
of which there appeared to be at least six. I could make out these ribs very distinctly and they too appeared to be made out
of cartilage. They were a darker green than the membrane that stretched between them... The appendage looked like it folded
and unfolded like a fan. I got the impression the lower edge which ran horizontal along the side of the animal was attached
to the body. It looked like it was flexible and could be bent without breaking...The membrane appeared to be a light grassy
green and the ribs a mossy green, but this is an approximation...' 'The head was slightly larger than the neck...I would estimate
the portion of the neck immediately behind the head to be about 10 inches in diameter...It definitely had a snake's head'
(William). The head 'looked like a snake's head. All I could make out was it was a little larger than the neck and had a short
snout...The head was about the size of a full grown seal's' (Robert). There is no mention of eyes or mouth. According to the
sketch labeled 'view of serpent in front of car 15 to 20 yards away,' the fins were well behind the head, indicating a long
neck. William looked for gills but didn't see any. The tail, according to Robert, 'seemed to be as long as the upper (anterior)
section.' He thought it would be 'flat or round...' and 'as it slipped into deeper water I thought it didn't thin out.' As
described, the two pairs of fins have to be interpreted as pectoral and pelvic appendages. From both brothers' descriptions,
and several sketches, they were close together in the midbody region, which means the creature did indeed have a very long
neck and tail. What are we to make of this? The reports of the sighting come from twin brothers (former Eagle Scouts, according
to one newspaper article), who say they were sitting in their car drinking coffee at 7:45 in the morning and looking out over
San Francisco Bay. Their accounts, which were sworn to before a notary public, were obviously typed independently; they are
lengthy, detailed, and congruent, although differing somewhat in information included. The brothers also provided a dozen
or so drawings, some quite detailed. The idea they made up a story, individually typed accounts several pages long, prepared
numerous drawings, and went to the trouble of having their reports notarized, all in order to perpetrate a hoax and gain publicity,
strains credulity. They sound intelligent enough to know people who report 'sea serpents' are not likely to be believed. The
fact their reported sighting occurred well inside San Francisco Bay could only contribute to skepticism. If they wanted to
see their names in the papers, they could have accomplished that with far less trouble. On the other hand, the creature they
describe cannot be assigned to any known class of animal; it is a chimera. Taking the descriptions on face value, we can identify
it as a vertebrate, but beyond that its features become contradictory. No known fish or aquatic reptile swims with vertical
flexions of the body (William acknowledges in this respect it was 'unlike any eel or snake' he had seen). Cetaceans, sirenians,
and true seals do flex their bodies in the vertical plane, but these flexions are modest and they are quite incapable of forming
humps, or 'coils', such as those described. The scales, slimy appearance, and pairs of rayed fins could belong to a bony,
ray-finned fish (except I'm not aware of any fish in which fins are attached to the body along one edge). With the exception
of seahorses and some of their relatives, no fish has what could be called a neck. In all cases, cervical vertebrae are lacking;
neck movement is impossible. In any case, the described creature cannot be assigned to any class of vertebrate. On the basis
of zoology, including paleontology and phylogenetic principles, it is an impossibility."
|
