Mermaids File: Detailed discussion of plot of the Body Found

There are passages in this discussion that I don't recall from Animal Planet's airing; could have been Discovery version?

http://www.paranormalocean.com/world/mermaid-the-body-found-documentary/

The Navy, NOAA, and Mermaids

The discovery channel recently aired a documentary suggesting the existence of mermaids. They had actors playing the supposedly involved members of the NOAA and various reputable organizations. Here’s the gist:

2 boys stumbled upon a mass whale beaching in Washington State and took a picture of an unknown creature with their camera phone. Officials in HAZMAT suits tried to convince them they had only seen a seal. NOAA investigated the beaching and believed it was related to Navy sonar testing. People in HAZMAT suits cornered off part of the beach. Meanwhile, Dr. Paul Robertson and researcher Rebecca Davis of the marine mammals division analyzed the bodies to determine the cause of death. Each whale had blood coming from its ears as if it had undergone some sort of trauma. Upon closer inspection, they found small lesions in the intestinal tissue in all the of the whales. They believed the whales had them as a result of the sonar blast. The NOAA had inadvertently recorded the entire event, which I heard, and it was heartbreaking (nothing like hearing a majestic creature scream in pain as it is being brutally killed.) The NOAA continued to investigate whale beachings as they unfortunately continued around the world. They wanted to know what was killing the whales in order to stop it, but they were also interested in a creature rumored to be washing up with the whale carcasses. Their recording had caught the sounds of a creature unlike a whale or dolphins, strangely similar to the 1997 Bloop recording. They called in Dr. Rodney Webster, an expert in animal language and vocalizations. After accounting for the spectrogram frequencies above the range of human hearing, Dr. Webster confirmed it was unlike any recording of whales or dolphins he had studied in for the past thirty years. When decreasing the speed to one-third the original, Dr. Webster was able to distinguish six different voiceprints and thousands of signifiers, or as we call them, words. The creatures were using language.

Scientists in South Africa contacted the researchers after recording what they believed was the same creature, just prior to another sonar blast resulting in more dead whales. The recording sounded as if the creatures were speaking with dolphins. The NOAA petitioned the Navy about their tests killing whales and dolphins and received no response. The NOAA discovered a shark killed by the sonar blasts, which had ingested several animals such as seals and dolphins but also contained remains of an unknown species. They had no way of explaining the source of puncture marks on the shark, with a stingray tail within it. Hammerhead sharks are known to eat stingrays but this shark was a Great White shark and they don’t mess with stingrays. The scientists wondered where the stingray tail had come from. After discarding the bones they recognized as belonging to seals or dolphins they were left with the remains of an unknown creature. They set aside DNA to be tested and examined each part left behind. The creature had a hinged rib cage, an evolutionary trait allowing marine mammals to be able to dive. They found teeth and were surprised to find different kinds of teeth (including molars, incisors, and canines.) Marine mammals have all of the same teeth.

The researchers were able to recover an estimated 30% of the creature’s body. At first they wondered if perhaps it was a manatee species thought to be extinct, since the creature had a similar tail fluke. Then they found the creature had bones inside their tail fluke a feature no manatee has, living or extinct.

The scientists were able to recover part of the skull, enough to send it away for reconstruction. They noted that the skull had a pronounced ridge on the forehead, allowing the creature to cut through the water for better speed. The femur bones they found were long, unlike any marine mammal. So at this point they knew it was not a seal, not a manatee, talks to dolphins, but it is not a dolphin.

They were puzzled to find a whalebone with a notch inside of it until they were able to fit the stingray tail from the puncture wound inside the notch and it fit perfectly. It looked like the creature had been using a handcrafted tool. After analyzing the phalanges they had trouble getting the arrangement to work, so they called in Dr. Stephen Pielson of the Smithsonian an expert on animal structure. He was amazed to realize the hip structure was actually very familiar, it had high ridge crest to support weight and had similar crests on hips. They formed the same structure as an animal that walks up on two legs, the only animal known to do so being humans (and Bigfoot, of course). They found small bones they believed were part of the fins or flippers but no structure proposed would fit. Then they realized the bones actually fit if arranged into a hand structure. They found an enlarged spleen, an important organ for marine mammals allowing them to store oxygen for deep dives.

Using the skull reconstruction they were able to predict the size of different parts of the brain based on our own brain structure. The opening of the frontal skull was concave and had an extensive system of sinuses inside the skull allowing for the creature to broadcast an incredible range of sound. Based on the proportions of the skull, the sound interpretation center would have been twice as large.

The sonar tests continued, a man working [in] the Navy stated they were trying make sound into a weapon so they could disable enemies from far distances by rattling their internal organs. The blast originated from an apparatus securely locked inside of sealed, waterproof cases placed underwater. The cases were capable of withstanding huge amounts of pressure, but the Navy was baffled to find the cases pulled off. No creature should have been able to do that and no one besides the Navy knew of their position.

The NOAA was amazed to realize the 1997 Bloop, the 2004 Bloop they recorded at the whale beaching, and the South African Bloop were all the same creature. The one they had found inside the belly of the shark. The creature only fit the appearance of marine human, or a mermaid. Mermaids have been reported for thousands of years all over the world, even by different civilizations that had never interacted.

The show went on to explain the Aquatic Ape theory, the idea that during the transition from our last common ancestor from apes to hominid (human), humans went through an aquatic stage. In this stage aquatic-ape like creatures are believed to have developed. Coastal flooding millions of years ago may have brought some of our ancestors deeper into water in order to acquire food. While we evolved from apes into terrestrial humans, our aquatic relatives would have evolved into creatures evocative of the fabled mermaid. According their website, The evidence for this theory lies in the strange differences between humans and primates as well as the features we have in common with marine mammals. • Webbing between fingers (other primates don’t have this) • Subcutaneous fat (insulating from cold water) • Control over breath (humans can hold breath up to 20 minutes, longer than any other terrestrial animal) • Loss of body hair (hair creates drag in water) • Instinctive ability to swim (human babies are able to do this) A highly developed brain, which depends on nutrients provided by seafood.

The Aquatic phase took place more than 5 million years ago. Since then, Homo has had five million years to re-adapt to terrestrial life. It is not surprising that the traces of aquatic adaptation have become partially obliterated and have gone unrecognized for so long. Here is how they depict the hypothetical common ancestor: [...]

charming right?

According to the scientists, some sort of police officials came early in the morning on 8/8/05 and confiscated all their work including the files, the body, and the skull reconstruction. What they did not take was the recording; either because they didn’t know it was there or could not take it. They came in with all the right sort of documentation and clearances and confiscated everything they could get their hands on. The scientists were extremely upset about this. All of the scientists then had their visas revoked immediately and had to return the U.S.

One member of their team left the NOAA to search for the creature. The rest went to track down the kids who had first seen the strange creature at the whale beaching in Washington State. The kids showed them a picture they had drew matching the depiction the scientists had developed.

Then, the boy brought out his camera phone. The officials who talked to the boys and tried to convince them they had just seen a dead seal, which looked very strange from decomposition, had not thought to check their phones. The picture looked just like the scientist’s reconstruction.

The scientists went on to petition the American and South African governments for the return of their research but were denied. The American government contacted them to tell them they had tested the DNA and said it must have been contaminated with human DNA because the findings were too close. They basically wrote this discovery out of history. Rather than acknowledging the discovery of a new relative to humans they said human DNA must have contaminated it.

Though the scientists could not get their research back, they decided they would continue in their study. They looked at the different spots where whales had been beached and realized they were migratory routes. The creature reported to have washed up with them must have been traveling with them. As they knew the migratory routes the whales traveled, they tried to find them. They believe they saw them that day. [Navy or other officials came on board and confiscated their equipment] Though it may have been a radically significant scientific discovery they came to realize it may be best we don’t know about them, since when our species lived alongside Neanderthals we wiped them out. They still fervently believe the mermaids are out there.

They point to the unique behavior of dolphins in places like Brazil, SW Africa, and SE Asia as further evidence. There, fisherman go into the shallows and call to the dolphins, who corral schools of fish toward them and into the fisherman’s nets. The dolphins know it is okay if they get caught in the net because they will be released. Upon catching, the dolphins are given their share of the haul. How did this cooperation develop? The scientists believe The scientists believe it is a natural result of our evolutionary relatives long companionship with dolphins.

Mermaids File: How sonar works and its uses

Scholastic

http://teacher.scholastic.com/activities/explorations/bats/libraryarticle.asp?ItemID=234&SubjectID=141&categoryID=3

Sonar
The word "sonar" comes from the first letters of "sound navigation ranging." Sonar can detect and locate objects under the sea by echoes, much as porpoises and other marine animals navigate using their natural sonar systems.

How Sonar Works
There are two types of sonar sets: active and passive. An active sonar set sends out sound pulses called pings, then receives the returning sound echo. Passive sonar sets receive sound echoes without transmitting their own sound signals.

In active sonar sets, the sound signals are very powerful compared with ordinary sounds. Most sonar sets send out sounds that are millions of times more powerful than a shout. Each ping lasts a fraction of a second.

Some sonar sets emit sounds you can hear. Other sonar signals are pitched so high that the human ear cannot hear them. These signals are called ultrasonic waves. ("Ultra" means "beyond," and "sonic" means "sound.") The sonar set has a special receiver that can pick up the returning echoes. The location of underwater objects can then be determined by the length of time that elapses between sending the signal and hearing the returning echo.

Uses of Sonar
Sonar has many uses. Submarines use sonar to detect other vessels. Sonar is also used to measure the depth of water, by means of a device called a Fathometer. (One fathom equals 6 feet, or about 1.8 meters.) The Fathometer measures the time it takes for a sound pulse to reach the bottom of the sea and return to the ship. Fishing boats use Fathometers to locate schools of fish.

Oceanographers use sonar to map the contours of the ocean floor. Sound signals can also be sent into the mud or sand on the ocean floor and strike a layer of rock underneath. An echo then comes back, giving the distance to the rock layer.

The same principle is used in searching for oil on land. A sonar pulse is sent into the ground. Echoes come back from the different layers of soil and rock and tell geologists what kinds of soils and rocks are present. This helps them identify areas for drilling that are most likely to contain oil or gas. This subterranean mapping is called seismic exploration.

Mermaids File: Use of sonar to find fish

Equipped with advanced fish-finding sonar, the AUSV can be used to direct fishing vessels toward areas where it is most profitable for them to fish.

http://www.harborwingtech.com/products_commercial.htm

Mermaids File: 2005 - "NRDC: Noise of Military, Industry, Shipping Harms Marine Life"

Environment News

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2005/2005-11-22-01.asp

NRDC: Noise of Military, Industry, Shipping Harms Marine Life LOS ANGELES, California, November 22, 2005 (ENS) - Rising levels of intense underwater sound produced by oil and gas exploration, military sonar and other human sources are threatening the survival of whales, dolphins, fish and other marine species, concludes a report released Monday by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In the underwater darkness, marine mammals use their own sounds and sounds made by other marine animals to navigate while migrating, to locate each other over great distances for mating, to find food, avoid predators, and care for their young. High decibel noise can interfere with all of these activities, testing the ability of marine animals to survive. Examinations of whales that have beached themselves after they were exposed to sonar used in military battle exercises show the whales were bleeding internally around their brains and ears.

 "Ocean noise is an insidious form of pollution. The tremendous damage it is doing to life in the sea is becoming more evident with each passing year," said Michael Jasny, the report's principal author. whalesCarcasses of beaked whales are removed from the beach after a mass stranding in the Canary Islands, 2002. (Photo courtesy NRDC) The report "Sounding the Depths II: The Rising Toll of Sonar, Shipping and Industrial Ocean Noise on Marine Life," is accompanied by a five-minute movie narrated by actor and environmentalist Pierce Brosnan and produced by the firm Imaginary Forces. The film, "Lethal Sound," is about harm to marine mammals from high-intensity military sonar and seismic air guns. Ocean noise is growing from a host of military, commercial and industrial sources including dredgers that clear the seabed for ship traffic, high explosives for removing oil platforms and testing naval vessels, construction pile drivers, harassment devices for fisheries, tunnel borers, drilling platforms, oil and gas surveys, ships, and commercial and military sonar. Intense underwater noise can harm marine life in many ways. Military sonar has been linked to dozens of mass strandings of whales around the world, and oil and gas surveys have been shown to damage fish and reduce catch rates.

 "Nations of the world need to work together now to reduce the impacts of ocean noise before the problem becomes unmanageable and the harm to marine life irreversible," Jasny said. There is no longer serious scientific debate about whether marine mammals are dying from intense ocean noise that originates from human activities, the NRDC says. The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission released a report in July saying, there is "compelling evidence" that entire populations of whales and other marine mammals are potentially threatened by increasingly intense underwater noise from human activities, both regionally and oceanwide. 

The Scientific Committee expressed "great concern" over the impacts of oil and gas exploration on large whales, noting "several cases of impacts" on large whales from these activities. The report cited an incident in 2002 in which humpback whales stranded off the coast of Brazil in unusual numbers during an underwater oil and gas survey of the area that generated intense sound pulses. Mass stranding and mortality events associated with mid-frequency sonar exercises have occurred, among other places, in North Carolina (2005), Alaska (2004), Hawaii (2004), the Canary Islands (2004, 2002, 1991, 1989, 1986, 1985); Madeira (2000), the Bahamas (2000), the U.S. Virgin Islands (1999), and Greece (1997, 1996). According to a report in the scientific journal "Nature," cited by the NRDC, animals that came ashore during one mass stranding had developed large emboli, or bubbles, in their organ tissue. The report suggested that the animals had suffered from something akin to a severe case of the bends - the illness that can kill scuba divers who surface too quickly from deep water. "The study supports what many scientists have long suspected: that the whales stranded on shore are only the most visible symptom of a problem affecting much larger numbers of marine life," says the NRDC report. But despite evidence of the harm caused by human sources of ocean noise, the NRDC says there are virtually no safeguards in place to protect marine life. NRDC began campaigning to expose the dangers of active sonar in 1994. The group accuses the U.S. government of blocking international efforts to control the problem. sonarSonar technicians aboard the nuclear submarine USS Toledo monitor the sonar screens during their watch while underway in the Persian Gulf on September 1, 2004. (Photo by Petty Officer 1st class David C. Lloyd courtesy U.S. Navy) In August 2003, the NRDC won a major victory, when a federal court ruled illegal the Navy's plan to deploy Low Frequency Active (LFA) sonar through 75 percent of the world's oceans. After this ruling, the Navy agreed to limit use of the system to a fraction of the area originally proposed, and that use of LFA sonar will be guided by negotiated geographical limits and seasonal exclusions. Conservationists believe this will protect critical habitat and whale migrations, and the Navy also retains the flexibility it needs for training exercises. None of the limits apply during war or heightened threat conditions. The pact demonstrates that current law can safeguard both the environment and national security, the NRDC says. But shortly after the settlement, the Bush administration pushed legislation through Congress that exempts the U.S. military from core provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, leaving the armed forces freer to harm whales, dolphins and other marine mammals in the course of using high-intensity sonar and underwater explosives. Now that the exemptions have been granted, the administration is appealing the court ruling limiting deployment of LFA sonar. The NRDC says it stands ready to defend this "hard-won" court victory. 

The NRDC report comes as the U.S. Navy is moving ahead with plans to site an Undersea Warfare Training Range off Florida, Virginia, or North Carolina, where a mass stranding of whales occurred earlier this year after a U.S. Navy sonar exercise. The training range would be the location for over 160 sonar exercises per year, and the NRDC says it would "transform the acoustic landscape" of the region. An undersea sonar training range already exists off the coast of Hawaii. 

But the Navy says another is needed to train its Atlantic fleet because of the growing threat posed by ultra-quiet diesel submarines. Conrad Erkelens, an environmental specialist for the Navy's U.S. Pacific Fleet, says the Navy has a history of "working to protect marine mammals in the vicinity of naval activity." shipsThe U.S. Navy missile cruiser Shoup (rear center) and pod of orcas in Haro Strait, May 5, 2003 (Photo courtesy Center for Whale Research) Some analyses of the effect of Navy sonar on marine mammals conclude that the sonar did not cause stranding. For instance, on May 5, 2003, several civilian whale watchers vessels and local environmentalists observed orca along the shore of San Juan Island in Washington state. At this time, the USS Shoup was conducting routine training using its mid-range tactical sonar system. Although some statements in the media reported that the sonar had resulted in injury to the orca and was linked to subsequent harbor porpoise strandings, NOAAís assessment does not support these claims. But overall, marine mammal conservationists are not convinced that sonar is benign. 

On October 19, five conservation organizations filed a lawsuit in federal court against the U.S. Navy. Whales, dolphins and other marine animals could be spared injury and death with common sense precautions, but the Navy refuses to implement them, according to the lawsuit, brought by the NRDC, the Cetacean Society International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League for Coastal Protection, and Ocean Futures Society and its founder and president Jean Michel Cousteau. The Navy has until December 18 to respond to the legal action. Sounding the Depths II is the second edition of a report originally published by NRDC in 1999. Sounding the Depths II sets forth a 
 comprehensive strategy for reducing ocean noise pollution. 

The new edition includes:
The most comprehensive accounting of mass whale strandings related to both military sonar and high energy seismic surveys conducted by the oil and gas industry
A global map of "hotspots," showing where industry explores for oil and gas by blasting air guns at the ocean floor
A roster of active sonar systems used by U.S. and other navies
The latest scientific findings on noise and whale strandings
A chart of mitigation measures and recommendations for reducing the impacts of ocean noise The report calls for geographic and seasonal restrictions on intense noise from military sonar and seismic air guns, technological improvements to reduce sonic damage, better monitoring and population research, stronger enforcement by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and a commitment to international solutions. 

Mermaids File: Wikipedia entry on both shows

Mermaids is a docufiction[1] that originally aired as Mermaids: The Body Found on May 27, 2012, on Animal Planet and June 17 on Discovery Channel. It tells a story of a scientific team's investigative efforts to uncover the source behind mysterious underwater recordings of an unidentified marine body. The show uses the aquatic ape hypothesis as "evidence" that mermaids exist, along with a digitally manufactured video.[2] A sequel broadcast called Mermaids: The New Evidence aired May 26, 2013.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.html

Mermaids File: Wikipedia entry on the Bloop

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloop

Mermaids File: Air guns and JIP

http://www.earthmagazine.org/article/sounds-and-cetaceans-quieting-noisy-underwater-world

Air guns are a particularly thorny issue — so much so that JIP has already spent $7 million measuring their sound output in the ocean, according to Gentry. Air guns shoot low-frequency shock waves from an array towed behind a ship down into the water. These shock waves penetrate the seafloor and help locate pockets of oil, gas or mineral deposits. But to get the seismic profiles researchers need, the air guns release large quantities of highly compressed air at 15-second intervals. These guns can produce noise levels as high as 250 decibels, twice as loud as a jet engine and well over the 200-decibel threshold for permanent hearing damage in fish and whales.

Since 2005, researchers in Norway have been looking at how sound from air guns propagates through the water. To gauge how sound waves from air guns might affect whales or other marine life, researchers first need a better understanding of how sound actually travels underwater. Ideally, most of the energy produced by air guns is directed down toward the seafloor, but the seafloor’s bathymetry has a significant effect on how much sound energy escapes outward. “A big part of the air gun project is modeling how sound moves in different underwater terrains,” Gentry says. “The air gun arrays produce and propagate sound very differently depending on whether the environment is shallow water or deepwater, if the bottom is sloping or flat, and whether the seafloor is mud or rock.”

Another major focus of the 2010 program will be to modify existing technologies like hydrophones and radar to detect whales near a sound source like an air gun array — with the goal of avoiding whale-human interactions. “Right now the gold standard for detecting whales is to have somebody standing watch on the bridge of a boat looking out with big binoculars,” says James Eckman, a marine biologist at the Office of Naval Research in Arlington, Va. “But that method doesn’t work in bad weather or at night.” Fortunately, he says, the key to solving this problem might lie in already existing technology. “Most of these animals make noise, so just dropping a microphone in the water could work.” Radar, which is already required on all seagoing ships, could also be used to watch for large whales nearby, he says. The Supreme Court’s 2008 decision stated that sonar operations must cease if a whale or other marine mammal is spotted within two kilometers of a ship. “Right now seismic operations are shut down at night, when we can’t see the whales,” Young says. “Developing better ways to detect them would double our exploration efficiency at sea.”

Mermaids File: Cast of The Body Found 2011

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1816585/

In 2004, when marine biologist Dr Brian McCormick (Sean C. Michael) stumbled across a recording of mysterious underwater sounds, he launched a scientific investigation to uncover the ... See full summary »

Director:Sid Bennett
Writers:Sid Bennett, Vaibhav Bhatt, 1 more credit »
Stars:Sean Cameron Michael, Andre Weideman, Candice D'Arcy | See full cast and crew

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1816585/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm#cast
Cast (in credits order)
Sean Cameron Michael ... McCormick (as Sean Michael)
Andre Weideman ... Paul (as Andre Louis Weideman)

Candice D'Arcy ... Rebecca

David Soul ... Narrator (voice)
rest of cast listed alphabetically:

Jason Cope ... Dr. Rodney Webster
Helen Johns ... Dr. Rebecca Davis

Mermaids File: Discussion at Yahoo whether The Body Found is a hoax

Answerer 1

The Show Mermaids: A body Found that aired on Animal Planet Was not real!! It was a ficitional Documentary people!

This is taken directly from Animal Planets Site about the show:

"How much of this is real and how much of this is made up?

The science really informs the fiction. The theory of Aquatic Ape mentioned in the program is real and has been studied for decades. Many events in the show have occurred – i.e. the whale beachings, Navy experimental sonar testing, The Bloop ...

We use the transitive property to further explore the possibility of mermaids – i.e. if polar bears evolved from the brown bear, isn’t it possible that a mermaid, which was reported in disparate civilizations for ages, evolved from a human-like creature that retreated into the water?

The scientists are actors who portray an authentic government organization (NOAA) who currently study phenomena like whale beachings and sonar testing. The imagined part of the show is our entry point into a new world of possibility rooted in science."
Source(s):

http://blogs.discovery.com/bites-animal-…

2 days ago

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130526210527AAMwArj


Answerer 2
Charlie Foley, “Mermaids” creator, writer, and executive producer and SVP of development for Animal Planet, says in an interview for the Mother Nature Network. “I hope and believe that the evidence we present, including historical documents, interviews with eyewitnesses and government spokespersons and new footage screened for the first time on television, will capture the imagination of viewers as much as the original film and the story of our scientists who came forward with their extraordinary findings. And I further hope people watch with a sense of wonder and with an abiding sense of possibility,” Foley says.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/I-Wanted-the-Story-to-Seem-Real-Says-Mermaids-The-New-Evidence-Producer-356692.shtml

Everyone's saying the "scientists" were played by actors. Above, Foley admits that there were actual scientists who came forward... Animal planet/discovery is backtracking from pressure unseen. And the disclaimer states in the credits, "None of the individuals or entities depicted IN the film are affiliated or associated with it(film production) in any way, nor have they approved its' contents. (pretty standard stuff) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWrUxgBywk) The disclaimer goes on to say "...though certain events in this film are fictional..." This disclaimer was probably designed in anticipation of govt scrutiny, and a convenient backdoor out of any pressure the FCC may have put on Discovery networks. Open your eyes people! Who said it was all fake to begin with? If it was Foley/animal planet, he contradicts himself in his interview with The Mother Nature Network talking about scientists.
Source(s):

http://news.softpedia.com/news/I-Wanted-the-Story-to-Seem-Real-Says-Mermaids-The-New-Evidence-Producer-356692.shtml

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmWrUxgBywk


The actual Aquatic Ape Hypothesis itself does not speculate on the possibility of mer-people. It only asks questions about why humans are more closely related to MARINE mammals as opposed to land mammals and postulates that an aquatic environment whether full or partial contributed to our present state of evolution as mammals and unique traits that caused humans to stand apart from other land mammals. The Discovery people have abused the AAH when it's actually been gaining a tad bit more credibility the last few years as opposed to a time 35-40 years ago when many Anthropologists dismissed it outright because no remains, current or fossilized, has ever been unearthed. The fact that this show claims the National Archives has a PHOTO of the "Real Mermaid" owned by Barnum was unsettling for me (yet still exciting as this creature was prominent in my "Monster folklore" studies 30 years ago). Anthropologically speaking it is not impossible that these creatures could or do exist and that they've managed to stay hidden. There's far more ocean property than land and new species are being discovered frequently. It would be a BOLD move to claim that this was an actual photo of this creature in the National Archives without it being true. I don't care what SNOPES claims is "False."

Edited 18 hours ago

Answerer 9The "Real Mermaid" is as fake as the "Fiji Mermaid."
A good clue is how it looks identical to the CG ones if the "footage."
However the fire which supposedly destroyed the specimen is real.

Greenland did issue a moratorium on drilling but in response to protests by Greenpeace.

Mermaids File: Charlie Foley interview "I wanted the story to seem real"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/I-Wanted-the-Story-to-Seem-Real-Says-Mermaids-The-New-Evidence-Producer-356692.shtml

May 29th, 2013, 08:42 GMT · By Elena Gorgan
I Wanted the Story to Seem Real, Says “Mermaids: The New Evidence” Producer

Over the weekend, Discovery aired a new docufilm on Animal Planet that’s proven a ratings winner and new fan favorite. Called “Mermaids: The New Evidence,” it presents itself as a documentary but it’s mostly fiction based on conjecture and facts.

The idea was from the start to create a film that would keep viewers guessing, while also offering them quality entertainment, Charlie Foley, “Mermaids” creator, writer, and executive producer and SVP of development for Animal Planet, says in an interview for the Mother Nature Network.

In other words, “Mermaids” doesn’t prove anything (albeit boasting of it), it just aims to open your eyes to the possibility that these mythological sea creatures might be real.

This explains the sci-fi pseudo-documentary format.

“I wanted the story to appeal to a sense of genuine possibility, and incorporating real science and evolutionary theory and real-world scientific examples — such as animals that have made the transition from land to sea, much as we suggest mermaids did — and citing real, albeit controversial theories like the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis, grounded it,” Foley explains.

“Using a straight, documentarian approach made the story more persuasive by appealing more to a sense of intellectual possibility as well as emotional possibility. I think the story works because it's possible to believe that mermaids might have an evolutionary basis; I think it works because you can believe they are real. And personally, I don't think there's any story more appealing than a legend that can be believed,” he says.

The inclusion of several controversial theories that have been proven accurate also serves the same purpose, the producer goes on to say.

Judging from reactions online (including to one of our pieces), Foley was right and his goal was reached: people believe in mermaids or, at the very least, believe there’s a possibility they might exist.

After all, man can’t possibly be alone on both land and water, can he.

“I hope and believe that the evidence we present, including historical documents, interviews with eyewitnesses and government spokespersons and new footage screened for the first time on television, will capture the imagination of viewers as much as the original film and the story of our scientists who came forward with their extraordinary findings. And I further hope people watch with a sense of wonder and with an abiding sense of possibility,” Foley says.

Mermaids File: Part of David Shiffman critique of Animal Planet shows

n earlier version of this article appeared on Southern Fried Science. 
David Shiffman is a Ph.D. student at the Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy at the University of Miami, where he studies the ecology and conservation of sharks. He writes for Southern Fried Science. Follow him on Twitter and Facebook.
 
1. The oceans are not inexhaustible, we’re currently overharvesting many resources, and the consequences can be disastrous.
This week, Animal Planet aired two fake documentaries claiming to show scientific evidence of mermaids. I say “fake documentaries” because that’s exactly what The Body Found and The New Evidence are. The “scientists” interviewed in the show are actors, and there’s a brief disclaimer during the end credits. However, the Twitter conversation surrounding the show (#Mermaids) reveals that many viewers are unaware that the show isn’t real. (Sample Tweets: “After watching the documentary #Mermaids the body found … I believe there are mermaids!!!” and “90% of the ocean is unexplored and you’re telling me #mermaids don’t exist”—which has been retweeted more than 800 times.) It is, after all, airing on a network that claims to focus on educating viewers about the natural world. “The Body Found” was rightfully described “the rotting carcass of science television,” and I was shocked to see Animal Planet air a sequel.

As a marine biologist, I can tell you unequivocally that despite millennia of humans exploring the ocean, no credible evidence of the existence of mermaids has ever been found. Some claim that manatees are the source of the legend, but you’d have to be at sea an awfully long time to think that a manatee is a beautiful woman. Sure, new species are discovered all the time, but while a new species of bird or insect is fascinating, it doesn’t mean “anything is possible,” and it is certainly not equivalent to finding a group of talking, thinking humanoids with fish tails covering half of their bodies. The confusion generated by “The Body Found” got to be so significant that the United States government issued an official statement on the matter.

When I started angrily posting about this on Facebook and Twitter, many of my nonscientist friends asked me why it matters if people believe in mermaids. It matters because the ocean is extremely important. It provides jobs for tens of millions of people and food for billions. However, many marine resources are being overexploited and mismanaged, leaving us in serious danger of losing them forever. Policy solutions can help, but if you are so ignorant about what is really happening in the ocean that you believe that there are organisms that are half human and half fish, you're almost certainly unaware of the important problems, much less how to solve them. Even if you don’t believe in mythical creatures, you may be unaware of the severity of the crises facing our oceans. Now that we’ve established that mermaids aren’t real, here are 5 other important things about the ocean that everyone should know.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, 32 percent of all global fisheries are “overexploited, depleted, or recovering” and another 50 percent are fully exploited (as of 2010). Just 10 species of fish account for almost one-third of the total global catch, and nine of these species have been exploited so heavily that they’re at 10 percent or less of their historical maximum population. Overfishing is the single greatest threat to the ocean environment, but this isn’t just an environmental problem. Fish are a critically important natural resource, with more than 3 billion people getting at least 15 percent of their protein from the ocean. Although human population growth is still increasing, we won’t be able to increase the amount of fish we’re taking from the ocean.

2. Current fishing practices aren’t just problematic for the fish species we are trying to catch.


Most commercial fisheries don’t use a rod and reel, catching one fish at a time and throwing back what they don’t want (or aren’t allowed to sell). A single longline can be many miles long and have tens of thousands of baited hooks; purse seine nets can be miles across; and the largest trawl net on the market can fit several 747 airplanes in its opening. Bycatch, which occurs when fishermen catch animals swimming near their target catch, is unavoidable with fishing gear this large, but the problem can be unexpectedly severe. In some fisheries, 90 percent of the catch by weight is bycatch, which includes endangered sea turtles and sea birds as well as marine mammals. Some types of fishing, such as dynamite fishing and cyanide fishing, can heavily damage the environment. Dragging a heavy trawl net over the seafloor destroys countless fragile and ecologically important organisms, the equivalent of hunting for rabbits by bulldozing a forest and killing all the deer, birds, insects, and plants that live there. The FAO estimates that 7 million tons of bycatch are caught and discarded every year.


3. Just because a fish is from “the ocean” doesn’t mean you should release it in the nearest body of salt water.

Invasive species are non-native organisms released into a new region. In the case of invasive fish, they are often introduced by aquarium hobbyists who release a fish when it gets too big for its tank. Often, there are no predators in the new habitat capable of eating these newly introduced animals. Lionfish, native to the Indo-Pacific, are believed to have been introduced to the Atlantic coast of the United States by aquarium hobbyists in the last few decades. Lionfish have no native predators in the Atlantic, and non-native predators are often deterred by their venomous spines. A single female lionfish can release millions of eggs in a year, so it’s no surprise that lionfish are now found throughout the Caribbean and as far north as New York, and they are outcompeting or eating native, economically important fishes such as snapper and grouper.


4. Sharks aren’t a threat to you, they’re important, and they’re in trouble

The average American has only a 1 in 3,800,000 chance of being killed by a shark. You’re more likely to be killed by a lawnmower or a vending machine, and more likely to be bitten by a stranger on the subway. Like all predators, sharks help keep the ocean in balance by eating the sick, the weak, and the dying.  However, sharks are suffering from overfishing more than most marine species, with 1 in 6 species of shark, skate, or ray (and 1 in 3 species of open ocean shark) considered “Threatened with Extinction” by the IUCN Red List.


5. Although mermaids don’t exist, the ocean is still full of wonder, and it needs your help!

What you do affects the ocean even if you live far away, and there’s a lot that you can do to help. Purchase sustainable seafood. Use reusable grocery bags instead of single-use plastic bags, which can choke sea turtles or sea birds. Support politicians who support ocean conservation, or encourage your current elected officials to support the ocean. Most importantly, ask your friends and family to do the same.

If I’ve ruined your sense of wonder about the oceans, don’t fret. The absence of mermaids certainly doesn’t mean that the oceans are boring.  As deep sea ecologist Andrew David Thaler said, "Look, the ocean is a vast, unexplored frontier. The deep sea is Earth’s last great wilderness. When we do venture into the abyss, we find creatures more diverse and incredible that our relatively limited imaginations can conceive. Don’t insult that wonder with something as utterly mundane as ‘human with fish tail.’ ”


Several of my marine scientist colleagues and I subjected ourselves to three hours of fake mermaid documentaries, live-tweeting and correcting inaccuracies as we watched. Click here to read a Storify of this discussion.

Mermaids File: NOAA comments on Mermaids questions

"But are mermaids real? No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found. Why, then, do they occupy the collective unconscious of nearly all seafaring peoples? That’s a question best left to historians, philosophers, and anthropologists."

--  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.html

The National Ocean Service - a division of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) - posted an article last week on its educational website, Ocean Facts.

Mermaids: Leaked UK Coastguard video

British officials claim the crew saw a seal.   

Mermaids: The New EvidenceLeaked UK Coastguard Video

Mermaids File: Analysis-description of Mermaids Body Found with emphasis on sonar angle and the Bloop

p.htm
June 7, 2012

Joseph P. Skipper

http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/general-directories/commentary/54/the-bloop.htm


J. P. Skipper can be contacted at: jskipper@marsanomalyresearch.com

The title of this commentary "The Bloop" may already sound a little too silly and invite ridiculous reactions but the core subject matter is real and serious. Some of you may know about it but also some of you will not and this is something that we all need to pay attention to.

Just what is the "Bloop?" It is a mysterious sound stuck with that name by those scientists first hearing it. It is a very powerful loud sound of unknown source recorded in 1997 located in the remote south Pacific west off the tip of South America and north of Antarctica. It was detected several times by the stand alone Equatorial Pacific Ocean autonomous hydrophone array system designed and built by NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) PMEL (Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory) to augment the U.S. Navy SOund SUrveillance System (SOSUS). The array's combined purpose is to monitor undersea earthquakes, ice noise, marine populations and their migrations, as well as to detect submarines and their movements.

This particular 1997 sound was of sufficient amplitude to be heard on multiple sensors and at a range of 5,000 km. It was determined by NOAA scientists to not be from a man made source but resembled that of a living creature or creatures never heard before. It was just several times louder than any living creature sound ever recorded and very different than anything ever heard before. Further, subsequent examination by other scientists suggest that the sound may be made up of many different individual signatures suggesting multiple entities creating the sound.

This evidence went without any real explanation, was a mystery, and since it came with no real answers, it didn't get much media or public attention and was essentially ignored. However, a NOAA team of scientists continuing to investigate this became excited because of the anticipation of the possibility of discovery of a new species making it. They also ran across an at first inexplicable large beaching and death of whales and dolphins on the Washington state coast that seem to happen around the same time as the sound. Further, the Navy was ahead of them at this beaching site insisting on secrecy and even dressed in hazmat suits. This raised some suspicions about why the Navy was there at all.

Further, the NOAA team subsequent investigation discovered that the beached whale body tissues were all showing clear evidence of massive sonar impact damage. Their speculative conclusion was that the Navy was testing a new sonar weapon that was either directly killing marine mammals or driving them in fear to get away from it into shallow water and the beaching's. Further, because the Navy had advanced knowledge of the weapon tests timings, that is how they always managed to get to the whale beaching sites first before anyone else.

Now the "Bloop" was a sound also accompanied by a lot of increased whale and dolphin chatter as distinguished from the Bloop and these were easily identified. The NOAA team thought that this was likely warnings being broadcast by the marine mammal communities (whales, dolphins, etc.) about the Navy sonar weapon test. They also drew the conclusion that the strange "new" species Bloop sound from the unknown source or sources was present for the same reason.

Later on in 2005 there was another mass beaching on the South African coast. The South African researchers there had recorded a similar Bloop sound from their own undersea sensors and the NOAA team was invited to come help investigate due to their known prior experience with this. The same Bloop sound was confirmed as was the same sonar damage to the beached whales. However, at this point a new factor entered the picture. The South Africans had recovered body chunks like nothing ever seen before from the stomach of a huge great white shark and they got the NOAA scientists to take a look at this as well.

The body chunks were in relative poor condition and consisted of three parts, part of a skull, much of the hip area, and the best preserved was a major part of a broad flat fluke like horizontal tale obviously used for up and down propulsion through the water. A thorough investigation including ruling out whales, dolphins, manatees, etc., first DNA sampling suggested that this material is humanoid in origin leading testers to conclude that the samples had been contaminated by exposure to humans. The excited NOAA scientists were suppose to take the evidence back to the U.S. for more exhaustive testing but just ahead of them as they arrived to pick it up, all of the evidence was confiscated by government order and has of course disappeared.

The core NOAA scientist investigative team members, although careful about what they say because of their association with NOAA and the Navy. obviously suspect U.S. Navy secrecy to be behind it all. They also strongly suspect that the "new" species that made the "Bloop" sound is actually a race of aquatic people perhaps with human origins. Determined to get the story out, some of the scientists involved themselves in a two hour TV special named Mermaids: The Body Found that just a short time ago aired on the Animal Planet channel.

Unfortunately, producer's likely perceived need to generate ratings for the show resulted in sensationalizing the subject matter with "Mermaid" labeling. That has invited a mixture of incredulous reaction such as one blog following the airing referring to it as a mockudrama. Such humorous but critical characterizations allow too many viewers to move the evidence over into the unbelievable and dismiss the subject matter as ridiculous. In other words, by escaping it, one does not have to deal with it.

The TV show does present some other evidence. For example, there are a fair number of documented cases where commercial fisherman have brought up fish from deeper colder waters with fresh evidence of broke off spears stuck in them. There have also been artifacts recovered determined to be hand worked spear heads made out of bone and/or stingray spines of unknown origin. There are also a few films showing evidence of humanoid aquatic creature capture but also of possible questionable authenticity.

The TV show also presents a short film taken by two teenage boys who apparently arrived first at the first whale beaching in Washington state even before the Navy. They describe finding a human like body on the beach in among the whale bodies. The TV show presents this film showing what appears to be a dead person being prodded by one of the boys but then it jumps up snarling at them causing them to run for their lives. That of course is why the 2-hour TV show is named Mermaids: The Body Found.

It seems that the two boys and their parents were also later coercised by the Navy into changing their public story about claiming to find a human like body but didn't think to ask about the boy's taking pictures and long after the event the boys produced this video clip to subsequent investigators. This clip is shown several times in the TV show but apparently edited. Toward the last of the show that part of the clip after the boys are running is shown with the camera pointing at the ground at their running feet. In my opinion, the camera is way too steady looking down at their feet as they are running for it to be taken as real.

That gives one pause about taking the clip seriously. Further, the whole TV show is stretched and augmented by considerable CGI effects creating the Mermaid people and their life that is entertaining but does little positive in taking the subject matter seriously. Still, even if one discounts these young boy's statements and the clip as manipulated and the TV show producer's motivations in their editing choices, there is still plenty of hard evidence here to take seriously. There is the Bloop sound itself, the marine mammal beaching's and their sonar weapon tissue damage, the contents of that shark's stomach in South Africa, and the government confiscation of this material to obviously prevent further in depth investigation by scientists determined to pursue it.

So why am I putting forth this issue for you to consider? It's because, in my opinion, the Bloop sound is sufficient hard evidence to warrant our consideration. Further, the examination of the body parts found in the great white shark, although the physical evidence was confiscated, it was still documented and sufficient as hard evidence. Likewise, the fact that the body was confiscated at all and by who, is itself evidence. Together this alone is powerful stuff no matter the shallow reactions and characterizations of some or what governments or military's would prefer to have us believe and prevent us from considering.

When I was very young, I subscribed for a year to Argosy magazine back in the 1950s. In one of those issues there was the story of a man who on the beaches of the world would find stones with pictures recorded in them of an aquatic race of humans. I have no knowledge as to whether this was truth of not but it sparked my sense of exploration and it could possibly be a factor here.

Then long ago I read Thor Heyerdahl's book "Kon-Tiki" in the 1950s about his and five other's 1947 raft drift experience across the Pacific from South America to Polynesia. As an avid marine oriented person in my youth, this form of drifting in a craft of sorts struck me as excellent for exploration because I knew that those doing it might see more than they anticipated without the disturbance caused by oars, paddles, motors, and other noise making devises. Sound is more pronounced and travels further in the water than in the air.

Sure enough I remember a passage in the book where there were heads of something unknown rising out of the water at some distance from the raft during some dark nights looking at them in the raft with those in the raft getting the distinct impression they were being assessed by intelligence and getting frightened by that concept. Obviously, this could fit in with an aquatic people consideration.

It is not my intention here to present this information as definitive or in a formal investigative report because I just don't have the time for that kind of in depth investigation here. However, I've elected to put the basic information on this subject in front of you as a commentary piece for you to consider and perhaps spark you into taking a look at this more serious than has been presented in a mere TV show for entertainment.

I will say this, in case you thought otherwise, we know so very little about the Earth's deep oceans that constitute at least 60% of the planet's surface and we have explored less than 2% of this entire under sea realm. In other words it is true that, although we know very little about the Moon, we know more about the Moon than we do of Earth's deep oceans. Remember as well that new life more alien to us than our imaginations can anticipate is discovered in them with every dive.

If this evidence does represent the presence here in Earth's oceans of an intelligent aquatic people who have managed to avoid contact with us for so long in such a severe environment, I agree with some of the former NOAA scientists. I say that we leave these people alone, live in peace with them, and try our best to protect them not only from those who mean them harm but from ourselves and from those who would hunt them to gain personal or social credit. Just leave them alone.

Also, might it be possible that, just as UFOs appear to be fascinated with and monitor Earth humanity on the surface of this planet, could it be that they (USOs) do the same with who ever or what ever may be in our deep oceans? I can only wonder if someone like Paul Watson or influential others among the Sea Shepherds fighting for whale survival (whale wars) and others in the Greenpeace organization involved in the southern sea off the coasts of Antarctica know more than they are admitting about this?

Also, might they know more about what ever is being hidden from us in the satellite imaging of Antarctica continent? Paul contact me and let's talk. There is future history in the making here for visionaries.

Joseph P. Skipper

Mermaids File: Why NOAA is in the Commerce Department

Link from Science Magazine

Mermaids File: photo of Merman from PT Barnum freak show

A copy of the flier was shown on Mermaids: The New Evidence  Unfortunately the quality of this copy is poor and not closeup of the face; Animal Planet enlarged their copy of the photo. 

Mermaids File Brian McCormick, Paul Robertson

 Excerpt below from a pro-Mermaids site.  I dunno; Brian McCormick and Paul Robertson are pretty common names. And the characters could have been deliberately named with the 'real' scientists in mind. Flip a coin. 

http://timenolonger.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/mermaids-sound-weapons-and-government-cover-ups-updated-and-compelling-evidence/

"Many of those speaking on it [The original "Mermaids: The Body Found"] have come to the conclusion that it is “debunked” based mostly on the claim that Dr. Paul Robertson and a marine biologist by the name of Brian McCormick do not exist.
They are hard to find, but they do exist.
Here is an excerpt from a document by the Narragansett Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, which research is affiliated with NOAA according to the document, and lists Brian McCormick as one individual who contributed to the project.
“The NBNERR Site Profile was made possible through the help of many individuals. Notable contributors and the expertise that they provided include… Sincere thanks also goes to current and former NBNERR staff members who assisted with materials presented in this document, but who did not individually author any of the chapters. These individuals include Robert Stankelis, Kristen Van Wagner, Jennifer West, Matthew Rehor, Kimberly Botelho, Brian McCormick, Alan Beck, and especially Roger Greene…
This publication is sponsored by the NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division and the State of Rhode Island. This publication is also sponsored in part by Rhode Island Sea Grant under NOAA Grant No. NA040AR4170062. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the NBNERR, NOAA, or any of its sub-agencies. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.”
http://www.nbnerr.org/Content/SiteProfile08/1_Preface.pdf
[Screenshot:  Note the web address and document title.  McCormick's name appears just above the lighthouse picture.]
And here is an excerpt from a document on the minutes of a Devils Lake water improvement district meeting. Listed as staff:
“STAFF: Paul Robertson, Seth Lenaerts, RARE Participant”
and affiliated with NOAA:
“Seid Creek: Green asked what is expected as the outcome on this issue. Robertson said nothing has occurred. NOAA previously said they were going to do a site inspection in March. Follow-ups have gone unanswered. Robertson asked if a letter from the Board would be effective. He explained that this is a construction site that has been filling debris above wetlands. Last year, a lot of it slid down into the wetlands. DSL has turned away from any enforcement action and the Corps never investigated. Robertson said it appears that Seid Creek is a watershed similar to Thompson Creek. Green asked for Robertson to continue making calls rather than the Board writing a letter just yet.”
http://www.dlwid.org/PDFs/Minutes%202009%2011%2005.pdf
[Screenshot:  Note the web address and document title.  Robertson's name appears to the right of  'Staff'.]
Why, among all “conspiracy” related topics would this be the one that was so highly attacked?
There are certainly elements of well accepted mainstream beliefs that might be shattered with the knowledge of aquatic humanoids. The aquatic ape theory is so poorly presented that even very adamant evolutionists could not help but feel shamed to preach it and it would not suffice to halt the questions about the accepted ideas of how life came to be on Earth.
That is not the answer all by itself though. There is something else that should not be lost on the viewer amidst the more sensational news of mermaids. The weaponized “sonar” which the Navy had allegedly invented is surely a serious issue if it were publicly recognized.
I am not sure that Ibelieve this weapon is Naval or is an advanced sonar weapon. We know there are sound weapons now and we know they can be lethal. They are not just a threat to wildlife in the Oceans, they are a threat to people on land as they have the capacity to be used not just in an aquatic environment but anywhere.
The USC sections sited on the shut down sites are those pertaining to making fraudulent or fictitious claims against the government. Those so-called fictitious claims almost certainly relate to the sound weapon mentioned. They are working hard to hide this and I wonder what we can do to make it less hidden…
[End Original Article]"

Mermaids File: March 2013 Greenland halts oil drilling licenses

This is the news story that was quoted in Mermaids: The New Evidence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/27/greenland-halts-oil-drilling-licences
Terry Macalister

The Guardian

Wednesday 27 March 2013 22.47 GMT

The new government in Greenland has slapped a moratorium on the granting of fresh offshore oil and gas drilling licences in the country's Arctic waters in a move which has been welcomed by Greenpeace but will disappoint the industry.

The ban came as one of the Arctic drilling pioneers, the British company Cairn Energy, failed in a bid to keep an injunction on any protests organised against it by Greenpeace.

A coalition agreement signed by prime minister Aleqa Hammond and others inside a newly elected administration said it would be "reluctant" to hand out any new permits, while exploration under existing licences could only be done under much heavier safety scrutiny. Oil industry experts in London said that a new licensing round that would have opened up waters off the north east of Greenland would not now take place.

Jon Burgwald, Arctic campaigner for Greenpeace in Denmark, said it was good news for everyone: "Until now, the people of Greenland have been kept in the dark about the enormous risks taken by the politicians and companies in the search for Arctic oil. Now it seems that the new government will start taking these risks seriously. The logical conclusion must be a total ban on offshore oil drilling in Greenland."

The coalition agreement makes clear a parliamentary body will be established to scrutinise offshore operations while promising oil spill safety plans will be made publicly available in future.

Greenland, with Alaska and Russia, has been at the forefront of oil company hopes to uncover an estimated 25% of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves lying under and around the Arctic ocean.

Early drilling operations by Cairn and Shell infuriated environmentalists worried about global warming and concerned that the pristine and icy waters of the far north could be irreparably damaged by any oil spills.

A decision by the former Greenland government and Cairn not to make public any spill response plan caused particular concern and led to Cairn's Edinburgh headquarters being taken over briefly by protestors dressed as polar bears.

A legal injunction obtained by Cairn against Greenpeace International was lifted on Wednesday although a parallel one against Greenpeace UK, which organised the protest back in 2011, remains in place. Cairn spent $1.4bn (£1bn) drilling without commercial success off Greenland while Shell has just been forced to drop plans to drill again off Alaska this summer after it ran into a series of technical problems in the region during 2012.

Hammond's Siumut party came to power this month following an election campaign dominated by a debate over the activities of foreign investors and concerns among the 57,000 population that Greenland's future could be dictated by the demands of potentially polluting new industries rather than traditional Inuit fishing and hunting.

Mermaid Files: Jan 2012 "Whale advocates sue Navy over sonar exercises"

Associated Press January 26, 2012, 10:34 AM via CBS
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57366677/whale-advocates-sue-navy-over-sonar-exercises/

Whale advocates sue Navy over sonar exercises

SEATTLE - Conservationists and Native American tribes are suing over the Navy's expanded use of sonar in training exercises off the Washington, Oregon and California coasts, saying the noise can harass and kill whales and other marine life.


In a lawsuit being filed Thursday by the environmental law firm Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups against the National Marine Fisheries Service claims the service was wrong to approve the Navy's plan for the expanded training.


They said the regulators should have considered the effects repeated sonar use can have on those species over many years and also required certain restrictions on where the Navy could conduct sonar and other loud activities to protect orcas, humpbacks and other whales, as well as seals, sea lions and dolphins.


Instead, the Navy is required to look around and see if sea mammals are present before they conduct the training.

Kristen Boyles, a Seattle-based attorney with Earthjustice, said it's the job of the fisheries service to balance the needs of the Navy with measures to protect marine life.

"Nobody's saying they shouldn't train," she said. "But it can't be possible that it's no-holds-barred, that there's no place where this can't happen."

In 2010, the fisheries service approved the Navy's five-year plan for operations in the Northwest Training Range Complex, an area roughly the size of California, about 126,000 nautical square miles, that stretches from the waters off Mendocino County in California to the Canadian border. The Navy has conducted exercises in the training range for 60 years, but in recent years proposed increased weapons testing and submarine training.


The groups want the permit granted to the Navy to be invalidated. They are asking the court to order the fisheries service to study the long-term effects of sonar on marine mammals, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act and other laws.

Regulators determined that while sonar use by navies has been associated with the deaths of whales around the world, including the beaching of 37 whales on North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2005, there was little chance of that happening in the Northwest. The short duration of the sonar use, typically 90 minutes at a time by a single surface vessel, and reduced intensity would help prevent whale deaths, they said. Regulators required the Navy to shut down sonar operations if whales, sea lions, dolphins or other marine mammals were spotted nearby.


The lawsuit, being filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, claims that the Navy's sonar use in the Northwest might be strong enough to kill the animals outright. But even if it doesn't, the repeated use of sonar in certain critical habitats, such as breeding or feeding grounds, over many years could drive those species away, making it more difficult for them to eat or reproduce, it claims. The fisheries service should have ordered the Navy to keep out of such areas, at least seasonally, the environmental groups said.


A spokeswoman for the Navy declined to comment on Wednesday, saying she had not seen the lawsuit, and the fisheries service did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The plaintiffs include People for Puget Sound, a Seattle-based nonprofit, and the InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council, which represents ten Northern California American Indian tribes.


© 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This

Mermaids File: 2009 "Navy Sonar vs. Marine Life"

kohlhase@earthlink.net

Navy Sonar vs. Marine Life
http://www.eco-web.com/edi/090228.html
By Charles Kohlhase
February 2009The Author is a Scientist and former Naval Officer based in Pasadena, California, USA

The U.S. Navy continues its sonar training exercises for detecting quiet diesel-electric submarines, with the damaging effects these far-traveling sound waves have on whales, dolphins, and many other forms of marine life. By using the power of science-based computer simulations, however, it is possible to achieve a solution which benefits the Navy, spares the marine life, and to a lesser extent helps with the economy, the shrinking energy reserves, and even the goal of reduced carbon emissions. In the long run, the Navy must find alternatives to sonar that can still meet submarine detection goals or which can protect the fleet if aggressive actions are taken by hostile submarines.

The Navy admits that detection of quiet submarines running on battery power is difficult, given the plethora of ocean sounds from natural and commercial sources, yet is unwilling to constrain their active sonar tests to protect marine life. The Navy stated in October 2008 (during the Winter vs NRDC case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court) that there were no recorded sonar-related marine mammal deaths off the California coast during the previous 40 years of sonar operations and that any such deaths were caused by non-sonar sources. Yet only three months later, the Navy admitted that nearly two million marine mammals each year may suffer “biologically significant impacts” from planned sonar operations off the eastern coast of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Supreme Court reached a 5-to-4 decision in favor of the Navy, with Chief Justice Roberts writing, in effect, “We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific, and recreational interests in marine mammals, however national security takes priority over whales and dolphins.” With the state of the world’s oceans and sharply declining marine populations at great risk, our value system must change under the Obama administration. We need Earth stewardship – not the military industrial complex conducting business as usual. This could be achieved by enforcing the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 without granting 5-year exemptions to the Navy for “incidental take.”

Marine biologists point to numerous cases of stranded whales which have suffered physical trauma, including bleeding around the brain, ears, and other tissues. In the ocean darkness, many marine creatures use sound to navigate, find food, locate each other over great distances, breed, and care for their young. Naval sonar can disrupt feeding and even cause species to panic. Scientists are concerned about the cumulative effect of these impacts on marine populations. The International Whaling Commission, comprised of expert whale biologists, has reported that the effect of sonar on whale mortalities is both convincing and overwhelming. In late 2004, the European Parliament even voted 441 to 15 to cease the use of active sonar in European waters.

The Department of Energy stopped testing nuclear weapons fifteen years ago, changing to simulations run on super-computers to obtain information on bomb blast effects. The Navy should follow this precedent. Sonar was developed in 1916, thirty years before the atomic bomb, and we understand the physics of sonar transmission through water of varying density, depth, and to targets of different properties over varying types of undersea topography. In fact, computer programs can simulate a vastly greater spectrum of target conditions and noise sources than can ever be carried out in ship-based exercises. The Navy acknowledges the value of simulations, but argues that their personnel must “train as they fight.”

The U.S. defense budget is presently $623B per year, larger than the combined defense budgets of all other countries in the world. In today’s beleaguered economy, we need to start cutting back where we can. The U.S. Navy could reduce its operational costs by using simulations instead of fleet sonar exercises. Each destroyer-class ship uses daily an amount of diesel fuel equivalent to that of about 6,000 cars, so energy savings would be dramatic as well. It is also easier to develop countermeasures to hostile submarine strategies through quickly modified and accurate computer simulations than through an endless and incomplete variety of training exercises.

It is also imperative that the U. S. Navy seeks to develop detection schemes that do not harm marine life. Examples include magnetic anomaly detection, synthetic aperture radar to measure ocean height disturbance, highly sensitive gravimeter techniques, a network of nanotechnology-based detection bots, and other sensing techniques identified from brainstorming sessions with top scientists. It is time to be inventive and not trapped in ways of the past. The Navy currently spends less than 0.01% of their $150B annual budget on “marine mammal mitigation” research. This tragic shortfall must be remedied quickly.

***


Copyright © 2009, C. Kohlhase

Mermaids File: March 2013 "Navy denied request to increase use of sonar off California’s coast"

"Navy denied request to increase use of sonar off California’s coast
Posted on March 11, 2013 by Physics Today
Los Angeles Times: The US Navy wants to expand its use of sonar and underwater explosives in training exercises off the coast of California. The state’s Coastal Commission, however, voted unanimously against the navy’s proposal. It said the navy provided inadequate evidence that the damage to whales and other wildlife would be negligible. Environmentalists believe the navy’s projected numbers—130 marine mammals will be killed over the next five years and 1500 will suffer hearing loss—are greatly underestimated. By law, the navy is required to confer with the commission, but it argues that it does not have to abide by the commission’s decision. Although the navy has said it will continue to negotiate with the commission regarding methods to mitigate the impact of training on wildlife, it previously has indicated that some suggestions, such as slower speeds of naval vessels and reduced nighttime exercises, are not practical."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309,0,1038169.story

Mermaids File: March 2013 "Coastal panel rejects Navy's plan to boost underwater blasts"

Coastal panel rejects Navy's plan to boost underwater blasts
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/09/local/la-me-navy-whales-20130309
The commission says military officials used weak data to support claims that training causes little injury to whales and other sea life.

March 09, 2013|By Tony Perry, Los Angeles Times

SAN DIEGO — Citing the danger to whales and other sea life, the California Coastal Commission voted unanimously Friday to reject the Navy's plan for increased use of sonar and underwater explosives for training off Southern California.

The vote will not immediately curtail any training, but will set the stage for additional negotiations between the Navy and the commission about how to safeguard marine mammals while permitting military operations in an area of 120,000-plus nautical square miles.

Commission members accused the Navy of providing inadequate scientific data to support its view that damage to the whales and other species would be marginal, and that measures taken in the past — including having sailors watching for whales — have greatly minimized harm to the mammals."The Navy's conclusions are not supported by evidence," said commission member Esther Sanchez of the Oceanside City Council.Members were also upset that Navy officials, before the vote, said that the Navy did not plan to follow the mitigation measures suggested by commission staff members, such as making certain areas off-limits to training.The Navy's plan "seems like an extraordinary increase [in sonar and other training] when we're at peace, in most places," said commission member Dayna Bochco of Los Angeles.The commission is charged with protecting California's coast and offshore areas. The Navy maintains that it does not need the panel's approval for its offshore training — only that it is required by law to confer with the panel and its staff.After the vote, Navy officials promised to resume negotiations with commission staff members about mitigation measures and other items before bringing the issue back to the commission.Navy Cmdr. John Doney, director of training exercises for the San Diego-based 3rd Fleet, said the increase in training is needed to prepare sailors for a shift in U.S. military emphasis to the Pacific Ocean region and beyond, including areas where the U.S. could be in conflict with North Korea and Iran.The California coast is the best training area available for the Pacific Fleet for individual ships and multi-vessel task forces, Doney said.America's adversaries, he said, are building super-quiet submarines and U.S. Navy sailors need to train to detect these submarines through sonar. "I would submit the threat is real and the threat is out there," he said.The Navy estimated that the training, at most, could kill 130 marine mammals in five years and lead to hearing loss for 1,600, although the environmentalists branded that a gross underestimate.Michael Jasny, director of the marine mammal project at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the increase in sonar, explosives and other aspects of training would disrupt the foraging and breeding of several kinds of whales and destroy the hearing of many, leaving them to die.