The first "sea serpent" photo is dated 1908, supposedly from the San Francisco Examiner, although some people who have looked can't find the issue. We do have the picture, which was republished in 1933 in a less-cropped version. The object looks weird, sort of a big black arched thing that might not even be part of the same original photograph. Smithsonian herpetologist George Zug, who was open to cryptozoological claims, thought he could see a tow rope at one end.
Sea serpents assiduously avoided cameras after that, which is a mark (not a damning one, as there are few or no photos of some beaked whales at sea, but an important one) against their existence.
(The 1908 photo is shown here: as far as I can tell, copyright has expired)
The "Mary F" photographs allegedly taken off Cornwall in 1976 by a semi-anonymous person made for some press, but the case is not even a good hoax. The "animal" looks like nothing that ever lived and sits absurdly high in the water.
The videotape of "Chessie" in Chesapeake Bay (1982) is more intriguing. It shows a dark animate object low in the water, and it's not immediately identifiable as anything known. Zug thought it was definitely animate but not clear enough and close enough to say for sure it was an unknown animal, either. A swimming python or anaconda has been suggested, though what it was doing in the bay is a good question. All we can say is that it MAY show a new species.
There are a variety of "carcass" photographs, but they are universally identified as known animals (usually basking sharks, though some look like cetaceans). I'm not aware of a single exception unless perhaps it's the Naden Harbor carcass photograph of 1937, of an animal recovered from a sperm whale's stomach. It was even used as the basis for a formal species description (Cadborosaurus willsi) (which technically isn't valid: you have to have a physical type specimen, not a photo, and no one knows what happened to the original.). Also, it's subject to counter-arguments that it was a shark. Given that's I'm not an expert in marine anatomy, I will only say that I can't take one look and say "shark" the way even I very often can. It bothers me how well the spinal column has held up inside the digestive efforts of the whale, and he head looks odd. I could be wrong on both points, though, so I'll admit this may be just a peculiar shark carcass.
At 12 feet or so, it's well within shark size: I wrote in one of my books that sperm whales were not known to prey on basking sharks, but Richard Ellis in his book The Great Sperm Whale mentions a case of 14-foot basking shark taken from a whale's stomach. (Philip Hoare, in his book The Whale, says an intact 30-foot shark was recovered from a sperm whale, but I don't see how that's even possible. I suspect a misprint or mistranslation of measurements.)
The only closeup photos offered for a sea serpent, shot by Robert le Serrac in 1965, are distrusted by everyone: the photographer all but admitted to a hoax, and the photos likely show an inanimate object either discovered or deliberately manufactured for the occasion.
This video from Norway is kind of interesting, but it is shot in a lake, and I'm going to confine myself to sea animals today: I mention it because the term "sea serpent" is used a lot in media mentions.
This new item from Ireland (allegedly from an arm of the sea called Lough Foyle) originally struck me as a towed object, although I suppose a whale isn't out of the question - there's hardly a minute of footage, so a cetacean might not blow or show flukes in that span. A reporter, though, has matched the background to a site 130 miles from the alleged sighting - a huge red flag.
And that, frankly, is about it. One disputed photograh, one intriguing but not definitive videotape, and that's it. For an animal reported since before photography began (way before) that's a pretty paltry record.
Have I missed any cases?
To catch a cryptid non-violently on camera requires application of models of what the cryptids may be like. Sea serpents may visit lakes and rivers only occasionally from the sea and may not spout. Skilled photographers could make valuable contributions to cryptozoology by filming them moving to and from lakes via rivers during fish runs.
ReplyDeleteI have to correct a mistake I made on another post of yours about lake monsters. I found the source I had thought stated the Dinsdale film object was mahogany. That is his book, The Story of the Loch Ness Monster. On page 53 he describes it as "reddish-brown color," - not mahogany. My mistake. Re-reading it, it regains its significance as one of the best pieces of photographic evidence for a cryptid. Much of this value still rests on his testimony of what he saw before filming with his binoculars.
ReplyDeleteI doubt the existence of a colony of large animals in Loch Ness because the evidence should have grown much stronger through decades of observation, but it hasn't. That said, I don't like any explanation I've read for Dinsdale's object.
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree. They do not live in the loch. They only occasionally visit it.
ReplyDeleteClark, it's hard to believe no one sees huge animals coming and going in a shallow river.
ReplyDeletePeople have reported them in the river and you say no one sees them. The river is not so accessible now so they may no longer go there. There are dams. They may then try other rivers when there are fish runs.
ReplyDeleteI found my copy of Ulrich Magin's Pursuit article, "The 'Sea Serpent' of Loch Ness- Resident or Visitor"
ReplyDeleteWhile Magin is a die hard skeptic, he gets down in the trenches more than most any do. He acknowledges that "at least two sightings suggest that they do not always swim through Inverness unnoticed." And he says that "other marine creatures came to the loch via the same route. Seals were seen in the lake in 1934 and 1985... Two porpoises were spotted near Foyers in 1917, apparently again without being reported in the river..." Also, "I personally think they spend some time of their life-cycle in the sea, and some time in fresh water...the highest number of sea-serpent reports in Scotland comes from the Sound of Sleet and the waters surrounding the Isle of Skye- only 500 yards... from Loch Morar."
-Pursuit #159 Fourth Quarter 1985.
I am sure he does not have such positive views any longer yet the evidence remains. They evidently dwell in the ocean and visit lakes only occasionally.