Chengdu Mermaid?

[LiDan]

hello，i've just been sent this photograph of a mermaid creature found by a riverbank in Chengdu, China， it looks like it has some sort of monkey like head, but with a fish like body and tail！

[Skep B]

looks like a log w/ a face MS painted on.

[freetoroam]

Hello LiDan,

Mermaid?

This is a joke, right?

It looks like JC with a a badly fitted denture.

Log with death drawn on it.

Edited November 28, 2013 by freetoroam

[DecoNoir]

Um... you know what, I think Kelevra and freetoroam has this one covered. Where's my bottle of J&D? I need to cry myself to sleep now.

Edited November 28, 2013 by DecoNoir

[Q-C]

Mermaid?

Only if she's an example of the effects of water pollution on the hair and skin.

Poor thing.

[tyrant lizard]

I can see now how they lure randy sailors to their doom

[Celestae]

I bet she was the last to be picked for the school netball team in every lesson

[Rafterman]

It's big, it's brown, it's wood!

[beelzebufo]

There's a taxidermist who makes these things, combining mummified monkeys with fish. I can't remember his name, but I remember seeing him in a Ripley's believe it or not book. I'm guessing this is either his work or the work of a copycat.

[Dragonwind]

Mermaid?

Only if she's an example of the effects of water pollution on the hair and skin.

Poor thing.

This....the pollution is so bad in many chinese waterways its suprising even some fish still survive!

Edited November 29, 2013 by Dragonwind

[ChrLzs]

LiDan, as the only link to this image seems to be your post here, that would indicate it is very probably your picture. Whether it is or not, where is the original? Or was it taken on a Barbie camera?

Actually, I know it wasn't.

It was taken on a Canon EOS1000 digital SLR. That means the original is much larger. I suspect it gives a much better idea of what this is................

I see it was supposedly taken on 18 September 2013. But at 2:36 in the morning? You need to check that camera's date and time - that's just lazy.

I see it was edited on a Macintosh in Photoshop CS3 on 14 November 2013 at 4:45pm (this time I'm pretty damn certain that date and time is correct. But that's rather odd - why would you use Photoshop on a picture - it's complete overkill for just reducing it. Photoshop is really good for *editing* images, though..

And what I find absolutely damning fascinating, is that:

- the photographer presumably only got one shot, despite that being a very capable camera, with good burst rates, a movie mode....

- that shot has the 'thing' partially obscured

- no story comes with it (you know, silly unimportant details like whether it moved, what sound it made, what the photographer did, what it did, to what authorities was it reported....

I think this may be the first image I've seen recently that ticks every single box for something starting with H and ending with X. Even a brand new contributor..

I will be delighted to be proven wrong... back to you, LiDan..

But just before I go, let's at least take a look at that area of the provided image, enlarged to show the actual pixels...

Waddyathink, viewers..? Convinced?

Me, I would have used a little less contrast (it doesn't match the lighting/contrast in that area), and I would have at least tried to be a little more artistic/realistic..

[tyrant lizard]

I think this may be the first image I've seen recently that ticks every single box for something starting with H and ending with X. Even a brand new contributor..

Awesome detective work. But do you mean hoax or Hyrax?

[reinesos]

I think Kelevra and freetoroam has this one covered.

[Eldorado]

It has same hairdo as David Icke! Coincidence?

[rashore]

Spot on ChrLzs

tyrant lizard.. you almost made me spit out my tea

[_Only]

[WhispersInTheAttic]

I see why you would think that's a mermaid, but I doubt it's real. I've heard a lot of about them recently though: proof of mermaids. Believe there was a documentary about them or something.

[Junior Chubb]

It looks like JC with a a badly fitted denture.

Don't mock my dentures

[PlanB]

This is going to sound like a bad joke, but the bottom half of that mermaid looks like a beaver.

[Q-C]

Yeah, I had noticed the beaver-shaped tail too. Don't mermaids have flukes?

Edited December 11, 2013 by QuiteContrary

[Skeptical Moose]

LiDan, as the only link to this image seems to be your post here, that would indicate it is very probably your picture. Whether it is or not, where is the original? Or was it taken on a Barbie camera?

Actually, I know it wasn't.

It was taken on a Canon EOS1000 digital SLR. That means the original is much larger. I suspect it gives a much better idea of what this is................

I see it was supposedly taken on 18 September 2013. But at 2:36 in the morning? You need to check that camera's date and time - that's just lazy.

I see it was edited on a Macintosh in Photoshop CS3 on 14 November 2013 at 4:45pm (this time I'm pretty damn certain that date and time is correct. But that's rather odd - why would you use Photoshop on a picture - it's complete overkill for just reducing it. Photoshop is really good for *editing* images, though..

And what I find absolutely damning fascinating, is that:

- the photographer presumably only got one shot, despite that being a very capable camera, with good burst rates, a movie mode....

- that shot has the 'thing' partially obscured

- no story comes with it (you know, silly unimportant details like whether it moved, what sound it made, what the photographer did, what it did, to what authorities was it reported....

I think this may be the first image I've seen recently that ticks every single box for something starting with H and ending with X. Even a brand new contributor..

I will be delighted to be proven wrong... back to you, LiDan..

But just before I go, let's at least take a look at that area of the provided image, enlarged to show the actual pixels...

Waddyathink, viewers..? Convinced?

Me, I would have used a little less contrast (it doesn't match the lighting/contrast in that area), and I would have at least tried to be a little more artistic/realistic..

And THIS is why you remain as one of my favorite members here...great work

EOS 1000D aka Rebel XS here in North America...boasting its whopping 10.1 MP sensor still has the capability of producing almost poster sized prints. I actually still own this camera from 07 but no longer shoot with it

If this were something i captured personally, i'd make sure i had the full resolution image available for scrutiny, and would have never thought of running it through PS in the expectation that people would claim FAKE upon viewing the EXIF

But that's just me i guess

[+DieChecker]

That picture made me actually Laugh Out Loud. I'd Roll On The Floor Laughing, but I'm still at work for a few minutes.

[Skeptical Moose]

That picture made me actually Laugh Out Loud. I'd Roll On The Floor Laughing, but I'm still at work for a few minutes.

If your in the fab of course...no need to stir up unwanted particles

[psyche101]

But just before I go, let's at least take a look at that area of the provided image, enlarged to show the actual pixels...

Waddyathink, viewers..? Convinced?

Me, I would have used a little less contrast (it doesn't match the lighting/contrast in that area), and I would have at least tried to be a little more artistic/realistic..

[ChrLzs]

ML, I thank you for the gracious and kind comments - coming from you that means a lot..

As to this conspiracy, I think we need to focus on ....

Who punched her in the face? (It's no wonder she has no top teeth..)