An exploration of our Earth's ever-captivating fauna through musings on the bizarre side of Zoology, Cryptozoology, Paleontology, and Paleoanthropology

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Ms. Julie Hagan's Eyewitness Illustrations of the "Hagan Carcass"

Julie Hagan's illustrations of the unidentified animal carcass which she allegedly witnessed in California.
I was very excited to see that on Facebook last night, Ms. Julie Hagan had posted her own illustrations of the unidentified marine mammal carcass which she witnessed in California. I had originally written about Ms. Hagan's claims here, but I only had an artistic reconstruction by Thomas Finley to use as a reference point. However, the eyewitness sketches recently supplied by Ms. Hagan are very important to this investigation in the sense that they are Ms. Hagan's own depictions of what she allegedly has seen. False judgments have occurred due to inaccurate illustrations of cryptozoological animals made by people other than the witness/witnesses themselves in the past, as was the case with the differing representations of the alleged sea serpent seen by members of the HMS Daedalus. However, now that we have Ms. Hagan's own sketches of the carcass she allegedly saw, this mistake can hopefully be avoided. These illustrations are very interesting as most of the depicted features match with Ms. Hagan's anecdote and do make sense for a marine mammal. One feature which makes it very difficult to suggest a possible identity for this supposed carcass is that it reportedly possessed both a blowhole and nostrils on its snout. This really doesn't make much biological sense, and the only suggestions that I can make are that it possibly was a vestigial or misremembered feature. I shared these illustrations with researchers Cameron McCormick and Markus Hemmler who both thought that it was possible that Ms. Hagan had seen a known species of toothed whale and misremembered the features. This is a possiblity, but Ms. Hagan claimed to have made careful observations and she has assured me that this was not the case. As I stated before, we can only make speculations which may or may not have any validity until a similar carcass is discovered. Keep a lookout for future posts on the "Hagan carcass" and please check out the original article on the matter which is now updated.

8 comments:

  1. I do not appreciate the fact that you alledgedly questioned what I found on the beach in La Conchita those many years ago. I am not satisfied by your speculation of my memory. I have a photographic memory, and remember details, of an event or item. I do appreciate your efforts in investigating said carcass, but I will not approve of your description of what I know I saw. You were not there, I took the measurements, I touched the carcass, I smelled the deceased body, I did what research I could at that time. I am not responsible for said carcass getting lost at the hands of The Museum that was called to investigate and claimed the carcass. I made all the appropriate steps to find further information on it and never received anything after the museum took it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My apologies Julie, but I was simply suggesting the possibility which must be done in such investigations. I DO NOT think you have misremembered observations and I do truly trust that you saw something which you could not identify and which had the features of your sketches, but I know that misrememberance has and will be suggested and I thus felt obliged to mention it as a possibility in the article. My apologies once again, have a nice day.

      Delete
    2. I have edited the article to take the content out, as I understand how you could be offended. I myself do not think you misremembered features, and I thus don't mind taking the suggestion out.

      Delete
  2. I see that you did not remove the insinuation of aledgedly or that I misremembered the details of this creature. You said you would correct it and as far as I can see, you have not.I spoke with several of my friends last night and they remembered my telling of this creature to them those many years ago. They suggested that I should find another researcher who would not fall into the ideas of scofics and have some guts to stand up to them and go forward with the research. I had told them, that I have faith in your abilities, but maybe I misplaced this faith.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms. Hagan, please don't be offended. A researcher is supposed to investigate every aspect, and I have already stated I have full faith that your memory was correct. I had not made this insinuation at all, it was that of others but I guess I shall remove it fully if you would like. My dearest apologies.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps it should not have been clarified in the comments and perhaps it was not written "careful" enough, but now that you have excluded this possibility due to your photographic memory and in order to complete your report I think this should be mentioned - as to this point certainly other researchers in future will also address. Isn't the speculation that due to its main features it could be a beaked whale is legitim as well as the simple question if it could be a misremembrance?

    The goal was certainly not to express an insult or something similar or to doubt your account. But seen objective and without emotion in order to identify the carcass this was just a possibility, which IMO (and what Jay also expressed) someone must take into consideration as serious researcher. Not because someone doubts the eyewitness account but as there HAVE BEEN cases in which eyewitnesses reported facts which turned out as misremembrance.

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to comment with your thoughts regarding this post! Please refrain from crude behavior such as name calling, making false claims, or using inappropiate language.