Full Version: Large creature...
I think it would fit more in the lines of a giant-eel like creature. Not a tadpole, since there hasnever been a saltwater tadpole in the history of amphibians that I know of.
Very true. Actually, ells have been known to grow beyond their size by great lengths. I do beleive theres a picture of one a couple of meters long somewhere on this world-wide-web. I'll see if I can find it.
PS: They should change www. to bpe. as a tribute to bannana pie eater, because HE, my friend, RULES!
PS: They should change www. to bpe. as a tribute to bannana pie eater, because HE, my friend, RULES!
But don't eels have smaller heads that are more in size with their bodies? I don't know too much about eels, that's why I'm asking.
They do, but who knows what type of eel we're dealing with? It could be a completly new species, assumeing it is an eel, or an ancient forgotten one.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 2 2005, 08:03 AM)
QUOTE
It's hard to tell with the angle, but it looks like it has a chunk missing out of it as well. This makes me think that it was photoshopped and the one who made it tried to make them look as alike as possible so you would think it was the same creature. Just something to think about.
When underwater, most if not all things look distorted. Not only is the water none-too clear, it's also riddled with movement caused by waves. Either of these could account for the breaks in the creature.
I've got to admit it though; if the creature was wounded you'd think they'd be blood. Plus, the creature comes right up close to the camera, or so it appears, and i do beleive he added the part about the wound after someone mentioned the break anyway.
I stand by what i said about my thinking its real though.
[right][snapback]433042[/snapback][/right]
I agree.The waves would distort the image of the creature,creating a "break effect".Was also said that 2 sharks followed close behind it during the encounter...
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 2 2005, 09:42 AM)
They do, but who knows what type of eel we're dealing with? It could be a completly new species, assumeing it is an eel, or an ancient forgotten one.
[right][snapback]433150[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]433150[/snapback][/right]
Ok,eels have heads that are the same size as their tail.So predators get confused with where the head is.Some moray eels have been known to grow to 20 feet or more
(says so in my book right here).Here are some eels...
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 2 2005, 07:15 PM)
Ok,eels have heads that are the same size as their tail.So predators get confused with where the head is.Some moray eels have been known to grow to 20 feet or more (says so in my book right here).
(says so in my book right here).Hmm i've just done numerous web searches and they all say the same, that largest Moray gets to a max of 3m-4m.
http://www.scubatravel.co.uk/moray.html
http://www.fishid.com/learnctr/morays.htm
http://www.imagequest3d.com/pages/current/...k/Moray%20eels/
Bit less than 20 feet ain't it?
Even though different sources have dubbed this a hoax, some of you are still desparate to believe. We need to get someone to make some fake photos, post under different name and see how many of you would fight to say they were real. I think we know the names.
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Jan 2 2005, 09:25 PM)
Even though different sources have dubbed this a hoax, some of you are still desparate to believe. We need to get someone to make some fake photos, post under different name and see how many of you would fight to say they were real. I think we know the names.
[right][snapback]433348[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]433348[/snapback][/right]
*cough* Walken and Canadian Rottweiler *cough*
They really do post any old pic and claim it's true, even when it's not really remotely logical to think so, lol, or when another clear explanation is provided.
EDIT - But you guys are still cool, you encourage discussion.
It could be possible that it was a dead eel on it's side that just happend to come up with the surf...... I have nothing to back this up... it was just a thought
I heard it was a superimposed (sorry about spelling) picture of a tadpole in the first image but i have never seen image 2.
QUOTE(Redefined @ Dec 31 2004, 06:44 AM)
QUOTE
Any sources to back these claims?
Yes, National Geographics. Never seen it? Well, let me tell you, salmon swim up stream in schools, tuna travel in schools for defense. well, crews on ships have been known to see fish big or small traveling in large groups that make up a form of a larger fish. All I'm saying is that that's what it could be, I'm not saying that that's what it is or the picture is real so read my post right and stop putting words in my mouth, Diebythefluyguy.
[right][snapback]430554[/snapback][/right]
No, you see, "Any sources to back these claims" was directed towards THIS pictures, not the fact that fish gather in schools.
Jesus Freak said its a school of fish, and I'm saying provide us with a source that claims this picture is a school of fish.
And let me add:
QUOTE
Robert went public with his story and as is usual some believed it but most didn't. Noted cyptozoologists Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans thought the story sounded fishy (pun intended). The movies that were taken were so blurred as to be useless. They thought it was a little too convenient they children were taken back to shore, thus eliminating the people who would most likely tattle about it being a hoax. And if Robert was worried the critter would attack them from the boat, why go poke at the thing up close and personal to film it?
Well, It turned out Le Surrec was wanted by Interpol for leaving France in 1960 with a lien on his yacht and for stealing funds put up by sailing companions. He had told them he had an idea on how to make a lot of money and it had to do with a "sea serpent".
When Le Serrec finally went back to France in 1966, he got 6 months in jail. His photo was published in Paris Match magazine who misquoted Ivan T. Sanderson and another expert as saying the photograph was real. The magazine never printed a retraction, but a rival magazine exposed it as the hoax it was. Source.
Well, It turned out Le Surrec was wanted by Interpol for leaving France in 1960 with a lien on his yacht and for stealing funds put up by sailing companions. He had told them he had an idea on how to make a lot of money and it had to do with a "sea serpent".
When Le Serrec finally went back to France in 1966, he got 6 months in jail. His photo was published in Paris Match magazine who misquoted Ivan T. Sanderson and another expert as saying the photograph was real. The magazine never printed a retraction, but a rival magazine exposed it as the hoax it was. Source.
QUOTE
*cough* Walken and Canadian Rottweiler *cough*
You know earlier in the pm evreyone was saying you beleived too much and should be more skeptical? Well I think we're on the same boat, Mr. Canadian.
QUOTE
They really do post any old pic and claim it's true, even when it's not really remotely logical to think so, lol, or when another clear explanation is provided.
Thats not true.You'll find both me and Canadian are open to opinions and suggestions, and often end up agreeing that the pictures were fake. But perhaps it is YOU, Mr. Richdog, that is illogical to dennounce the exsistence of a creature we have not yet encountered so hastily. Further more, no clear explanation for these images has been provided without flaw.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 3 2005, 07:44 AM)
QUOTE
*cough* Walken and Canadian Rottweiler *cough*
You know earlier in the pm evreyone was saying you beleived too much and should be more skeptical? Well I think we're on the same boat, Mr. Canadian.
QUOTE
They really do post any old pic and claim it's true, even when it's not really remotely logical to think so, lol, or when another clear explanation is provided.
Thats not true.You'll find both me and Canadian are open to opinions and suggestions, and often end up agreeing that the pictures were fake. But perhaps it is YOU, Mr. Richdog, that is illogical to dennounce the exsistence of a creature we have not yet encountered so hastily. Further more, no clear explanation for these images has been provided without flaw.
[right][snapback]434107[/snapback][/right]
Hey i'd love to believe in these things, I just seem to have more of an ability to apply a bit of rationality and logic to the proceedings, and not see any pic as "vey possibly real". There's a reason that you don't hear about pics and things like that on the news, it's because 99% of the time they are hoaxes or natural beasts/phenomena and NOT cryptoids, and the people who submit them invariably know that.
I believe there are unexplainable things out there in the seas, monsters mayhap, but I don't apply that theory to every half-baked pic I see (and you and CR do, you have to admit it, do I need to go hunting for examples of obvious fakes you post and ask the validity of? I think not...).
I'm not saying you do this on every pic... just the vast majority...
I challenge you to find one example where me or mr. Canadian refused to beleive a picture was fake when faced with actual evibdence proveing this.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 3 2005, 01:01 PM)
I challenge you to find one example where me or mr. Canadian refused to beleive a picture was fake when faced with actual evibdence proveing this.
[right][snapback]434288[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]434288[/snapback][/right]
Yes you do say it's a fake eventually, but for the first 7 posts or so you usually say something like "I really don't see how this can be faked because..." when people have given the various reasons for it. I will find examples later if you like I remember a few lately.
OK here's the most notable one Walken...
The Arizona Devil, the most obvious fake I have possibly ever seen, which you defend long past when you should sensibly do... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=30517
This thread also, and the Sea Monster carcass thread.
there's likely more but I can't be arsed to search really.
The Arizona Devil, the most obvious fake I have possibly ever seen, which you defend long past when you should sensibly do... http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...showtopic=30517
This thread also, and the Sea Monster carcass thread.
there's likely more but I can't be arsed to search really.
looks like an oil leak form the boat to me
It is a car under the water leaking fluid of some sorts
Thanks Richdog, for bringing together some of the threads they post. Maybe they will see the reason we post the way we do. No, I doubt it.
I will now formally debunk rich dog's theory, that I refused to beleive the picture was fake until my last few posts.
Post one;
This is not me defending the picture, I simply requested him to explain his de bunk to someone not as skilled in photography graphics as he is.
Post two;
This is an observation about the picture; me observeing that the image actually is clearer than the images around it; not defence to the picture or me denying its origins.
Post three;
Haveing found out of the images origins formally, I asked how it was faked. You will notice I did this on post three, not the seventh post that you previously claimed I did. For the sake of sakes, I will continue.
Post four;
An observation I made on someones commentry of the images quality, claiming that it had been dropped and thats what caused the blur-re-ness. This is not me continueing to defend what I at that point knew was a known fake.
Conclusion: I neither made seven posts, or defended the photo ONCE after the origonal topic.
Your interpretation is not fact.
Post one;
QUOTE
Rm, can you please explain your debunk to me?
This is not me defending the picture, I simply requested him to explain his de bunk to someone not as skilled in photography graphics as he is.
Post two;
QUOTE
I don't notice any lack of clarity. I think its actually prettey clear, apart from being out of place.
This is an observation about the picture; me observeing that the image actually is clearer than the images around it; not defence to the picture or me denying its origins.
Post three;
QUOTE
Ah, My mistake. I assume it was photo shopped then?
Haveing found out of the images origins formally, I asked how it was faked. You will notice I did this on post three, not the seventh post that you previously claimed I did. For the sake of sakes, I will continue.
Post four;
QUOTE
It could look blurred if the figure was asscending or descending.
An observation I made on someones commentry of the images quality, claiming that it had been dropped and thats what caused the blur-re-ness. This is not me continueing to defend what I at that point knew was a known fake.
Conclusion: I neither made seven posts, or defended the photo ONCE after the origonal topic.
Your interpretation is not fact.
QUOTE(Richdog @ Jan 2 2005, 12:17 PM)
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 2 2005, 07:15 PM)
Ok,eels have heads that are the same size as their tail.So predators get confused with where the head is.Some moray eels have been known to grow to 20 feet or more (says so in my book right here).
(says so in my book right here).Hmm i've just done numerous web searches and they all say the same, that largest Moray gets to a max of 3m-4m.
http://www.scubatravel.co.uk/moray.html
http://www.fishid.com/learnctr/morays.htm
http://www.imagequest3d.com/pages/current/...k/Moray%20eels/
Bit less than 20 feet ain't it?
[right][snapback]433340[/snapback][/right]
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 3 2005, 02:26 PM)
I will now formally debunk rich dog's theory, that I refused to beleive the picture was fake until my last few posts.
Post one;
This is not me defending the picture, I simply requested him to explain his de bunk to someone not as skilled in photography graphics as he is.
Post two;
This is an observation about the picture; me observeing that the image actually is clearer than the images around it; not defence to the picture or me denying its origins.
Post three;
Haveing found out of the images origins formally, I asked how it was faked. You will notice I did this on post three, not the seventh post that you previously claimed I did. For the sake of sakes, I will continue.
Post four;
An observation I made on someones commentry of the images quality, claiming that it had been dropped and thats what caused the blur-re-ness. This is not me continueing to defend what I at that point knew was a known fake.
Conclusion: I neither made seven posts, or defended the photo ONCE after the origonal topic.
Your interpretation is not fact.
[right][snapback]434884[/snapback][/right]
Post one;
QUOTE
Rm, can you please explain your debunk to me?
This is not me defending the picture, I simply requested him to explain his de bunk to someone not as skilled in photography graphics as he is.
Post two;
QUOTE
I don't notice any lack of clarity. I think its actually prettey clear, apart from being out of place.
This is an observation about the picture; me observeing that the image actually is clearer than the images around it; not defence to the picture or me denying its origins.
Post three;
QUOTE
Ah, My mistake. I assume it was photo shopped then?
Haveing found out of the images origins formally, I asked how it was faked. You will notice I did this on post three, not the seventh post that you previously claimed I did. For the sake of sakes, I will continue.
Post four;
QUOTE
It could look blurred if the figure was asscending or descending.
An observation I made on someones commentry of the images quality, claiming that it had been dropped and thats what caused the blur-re-ness. This is not me continueing to defend what I at that point knew was a known fake.
Conclusion: I neither made seven posts, or defended the photo ONCE after the origonal topic.
Your interpretation is not fact.
[right][snapback]434884[/snapback][/right]
Walken,at first,it seemed we were against eachother,but now,i agree that we mostly think of cryptos the same way,the same views.Ericraven won't even stop trying to piss us off,cause he obviously enjoys doing so.Richdog,walken was just asking questions in his threads,and he was open to opinions.I am too.You won't find one post where we don't care about other opinions,we do listen to them.But when there is 10 different theories on a pic,we might as well go with our original theory of what it is.We have just as much say as anyone else.Ericraven,nomatter how much you bug us,we'll believe what we want,and it would be wise of you to respect that,and listen to someone else's opinion for a change.
I only listen to reason. Really it is only you ,Rott,that I like to harp on. Your the one with the most outrageous posts and pics. Keep up the good work. 
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Jan 3 2005, 04:00 PM)
I only listen to reason. Really it is only you ,Rott,that I like to harp on. Your the one with the most outrageous posts and pics. Keep up the good work.
[right][snapback]435020[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435020[/snapback][/right]
You know what's funny,you keep assuming you're right,but you're not.And don't worry,i will keep up the good work
lol; Mr. Canadian and Walken, UM Cryptid allys?
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 3 2005, 04:10 PM)
lol; Mr. Canadian and Walken, UM Cryptid allys?
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
[right][snapback]435032[/snapback][/right]
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
[right][snapback]435032[/snapback][/right]
That's cool
Anyway,i agree with you walken,he can't prove it,cause what he is looking for doesn't exist.
Well said
Ha. I have nothing to prove. Both of you are the ones believing in things that can't be proved. So desperate to believe.
QUOTE(ericraven2003 @ Jan 3 2005, 04:21 PM)
Ha. I have nothing to prove. Both of you are the ones believing in things that can't be proved. So desperate to believe.
[right][snapback]435049[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435049[/snapback][/right]
That is a typical thing of a failure to say,just leave us the hell alone.Cause nomatter what you say,we will believe in what we want,and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
But you're also beleiveing in things that can't be proved. Evrey day. Right now, you beleive this picture was photo shopped. Prove it. I'm not talking, enlargement plus red circles, I'm talking real hard evibdence; confessions, origonal documents showing the un-edited picture. You beleive something that cannot be proved, and so dow e. where in lies the problem?
I have no problem with you believing(except maybe rott. , just kidding), but I will state my opinion.
But you do so in an im-polite, if not aggresive manner. Just be a little more considerate, I ask.
Anyway,i found the full,uncropped pic of this creature.And the original site to go with it...Mysterious creature
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 3 2005, 02:50 PM)
QUOTE(Richdog @ Jan 2 2005, 12:17 PM)
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 2 2005, 07:15 PM)
Ok,eels have heads that are the same size as their tail.So predators get confused with where the head is.Some moray eels have been known to grow to 20 feet or more (says so in my book right here).
(says so in my book right here). Hmm i've just done numerous web searches and they all say the same, that largest Moray gets to a max of 3m-4m.
http://www.scubatravel.co.uk/moray.html
http://www.fishid.com/learnctr/morays.htm
http://www.imagequest3d.com/pages/current/...k/Moray%20eels/
Bit less than 20 feet ain't it?
[right][snapback]433340[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435005[/snapback][/right]
try 13 feet, i think you need to brush up on your math
1 metre =3.2808398950131 feet, so 4 metres would be 13.123359580052 feet, to be exact. a bit less then 20 feet, you know, like the height of shaq
QUOTE(bloodmoon @ Jan 4 2005, 01:23 AM)
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 3 2005, 02:50 PM)
QUOTE(Richdog @ Jan 2 2005, 12:17 PM)
QUOTE(Canadian Rottweiler @ Jan 2 2005, 07:15 PM)
Ok,eels have heads that are the same size as their tail.So predators get confused with where the head is.Some moray eels have been known to grow to 20 feet or more (says so in my book right here).
(says so in my book right here). Hmm i've just done numerous web searches and they all say the same, that largest Moray gets to a max of 3m-4m.
http://www.scubatravel.co.uk/moray.html
http://www.fishid.com/learnctr/morays.htm
http://www.imagequest3d.com/pages/current/...k/Moray%20eels/
Bit less than 20 feet ain't it?
[right][snapback]433340[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435005[/snapback][/right]
try 13 feet, i think you need to brush up on your math
1 metre =3.2808398950131 feet, so 4 metres would be 13.123359580052 feet, to be exact. a bit less then 20 feet, you know, like the height of shaq
[right][snapback]435739[/snapback][/right]
Nah,here in Canada,we don't really do the conversions,we just use meters,not all that other obsolete stuff that the US clings to.Although,i am quite sure that 1 meter is more than 3.280...,check again,cause that doesn't seem right.
im looking at a metric comversion program right now that says you need to study more in school.
QUOTE(bloodmoon @ Jan 4 2005, 01:36 AM)
im looking at a metric comversion program right now that says you need to study more in school.
[right][snapback]435751[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435751[/snapback][/right]
Sure thing mr.spelling mistakes
Anyways,if you say so,although,that length has nothing to do with link i posted 
Maybe you should check that out instead...
1 metre = 1000.0000000000 mm, 100.00000000000cm, 39.370078740157 in, 3.2808398950131 feet, 1.0936132983377yards, 0.0006213711922 mile, 0.001 kilometers, 0.0005399568035 nautical miles, 0.0049709695379 furlongs, 1000000.0000000 microns
i have been watching all the nonsense in this and your other threads, just because i don't post on every thread i read, doesn't mean i don't read them.
i have been watching all the nonsense in this and your other threads, just because i don't post on every thread i read, doesn't mean i don't read them.
Sorry to jump into the discussion, but bloodmoon is correct about the meter to foot comparison. It's listed in Webster's Dictionary as 1 meter = 3.28 feet.
As far as the picture goes Canadian, it looks like a very real creature. The only problem I have with it is that there seems to be no blood trail in the water from the injury.
Anyway, good job on finding it and crreating an interesting subject.!!
As far as the picture goes Canadian, it looks like a very real creature. The only problem I have with it is that there seems to be no blood trail in the water from the injury.
Anyway, good job on finding it and crreating an interesting subject.!!
QUOTE(bloodmoon @ Jan 4 2005, 01:39 AM)
1 metre = 1000.0000000000 mm, 100.00000000000cm, 39.370078740157 in, 3.2808398950131 feet, 1.0936132983377yards, 0.0006213711922 mile, 0.001 kilometres, 0.0005399568035 nautical miles, 0.0049709695379 furlongs, 1000000.0000000 microns
[right][snapback]435756[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]435756[/snapback][/right]
Dude,i really don't care about that length.Just check the link.
QUOTE(ALNA70 @ Jan 4 2005, 01:39 AM)
Sorry to jump into the discussion, but bloodmoon is correct about the meter to foot comparison. It's listed in Webster's Dictionary as 1 meter = 3.28 feet.
As far as the picture goes Canadian, it looks like a very real creature. The only problem I have with it is that there seems to be no blood trail in the water from the injury.
Anyway, good job on finding it and crreating an interesting subject.!!
[right][snapback]435758[/snapback][/right]
As far as the picture goes Canadian, it looks like a very real creature. The only problem I have with it is that there seems to be no blood trail in the water from the injury.
Anyway, good job on finding it and crreating an interesting subject.!!
[right][snapback]435758[/snapback][/right]
Ok.Thanx for the compliment
Inconsistent as always.
Please stop argueing people. This is a really good thread and pic and I don't want it to get shut down.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 3 2005, 07:10 PM)
lol; Mr. Canadian and Walken, UM Cryptid allys?
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
[right][snapback]435032[/snapback][/right]
Like I said, I'm yet to se an example of me or mr. canadian refuseing to beleive the truth when faced with hard evibdence. If you can show this to me I'll accept your claims, but it seems you can't.
[right][snapback]435032[/snapback][/right]
If you actually looked at any of the link's I provided throughout this thread you would realize there is proof that offers fact that it IS fake.
ALSO:
QUOTE
Robert went public with his story and as is usual some believed it but most didn't. Noted cyptozoologists Ivan T. Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans thought the story sounded fishy (pun intended). The movies that were taken were so blurred as to be useless. They thought it was a little too convenient they children were taken back to shore, thus eliminating the people who would most likely tattle about it being a hoax. And if Robert was worried the critter would attack them from the boat, why go poke at the thing up close and personal to film it?
Well, It turned out Le Surrec was wanted by Interpol for leaving France in 1960 with a lien on his yacht and for stealing funds put up by sailing companions. He had told them he had an idea on how to make a lot of money and it had to do with a "sea serpent".
When Le Serrec finally went back to France in 1966, he got 6 months in jail. His photo was published in Paris Match magazine who misquoted Ivan T. Sanderson and another expert as saying the photograph was real. The magazine never printed a retraction, but a rival magazine exposed it as the hoax it was.
Well, It turned out Le Surrec was wanted by Interpol for leaving France in 1960 with a lien on his yacht and for stealing funds put up by sailing companions. He had told them he had an idea on how to make a lot of money and it had to do with a "sea serpent".
When Le Serrec finally went back to France in 1966, he got 6 months in jail. His photo was published in Paris Match magazine who misquoted Ivan T. Sanderson and another expert as saying the photograph was real. The magazine never printed a retraction, but a rival magazine exposed it as the hoax it was.
In case your too lazy to read it I'll sum up one part for you. THE PERSON WHO TOOK THE PICTURE TOLD PEOPLE HE KNEW HOW TO MAKE MONEY AND IT HAD TO DO WITH A SEA SERPENT.
QUOTE(Diebytheflyguy @ Dec 29 2004, 10:20 PM)
QUOTE
7. The Queensland Monster
In December 1964, French photographer Robert Serrec was on vacation in Queensland, Australia, when he took the photograph of a lifetime -- or faked it. He was paddling rowboats with a group of family and friends in shallow waters off Hook Island, near the Queensland coast, when he says a bizarre creature appeared beneath the waves.
Serrec described the monster as an enormous, dark-colored snake with the shape of a giant tadpole. It had a huge reptilian head and a slender, waving body that stretched to about 75-80 feet. Serrec said there seemed to be a wounded area on the creature's back. One of Serrec's photos (shown on this page) presents a very clear and striking image that distinguishes it from the average blurred, murky sea monster picture. Serrec also shot some movie camera footage underwater, but it did not turn out with any distinct detail.
Serrec's photo and his story have been widely discredited as a hoax. The main argument against the photo is that it is simply too clear -- it looks so perfect and so overly "real" that many experts believe, ironically, that it must have been staged. It is also extremely difficult to judge the scale of the supposed creature. The position of the tiny man in the rowboat above the monster creates the visual impression that the monster must be gigantic, but it could actually be a small prop photographed at very close range, with the rowboat off in the far distance. Source.
In December 1964, French photographer Robert Serrec was on vacation in Queensland, Australia, when he took the photograph of a lifetime -- or faked it. He was paddling rowboats with a group of family and friends in shallow waters off Hook Island, near the Queensland coast, when he says a bizarre creature appeared beneath the waves.
Serrec described the monster as an enormous, dark-colored snake with the shape of a giant tadpole. It had a huge reptilian head and a slender, waving body that stretched to about 75-80 feet. Serrec said there seemed to be a wounded area on the creature's back. One of Serrec's photos (shown on this page) presents a very clear and striking image that distinguishes it from the average blurred, murky sea monster picture. Serrec also shot some movie camera footage underwater, but it did not turn out with any distinct detail.
Serrec's photo and his story have been widely discredited as a hoax. The main argument against the photo is that it is simply too clear -- it looks so perfect and so overly "real" that many experts believe, ironically, that it must have been staged. It is also extremely difficult to judge the scale of the supposed creature. The position of the tiny man in the rowboat above the monster creates the visual impression that the monster must be gigantic, but it could actually be a small prop photographed at very close range, with the rowboat off in the far distance. Source.
Oh, and another source saying it was a hoax. Link.
Case Closed.
[right][snapback]428727[/snapback][/right]
Now if you continue to argue that its real, then you have the burden of to prove how it is real, and not just by showing us a picture.
I'll save you the hassel... IT IS A HOAX.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 4 2005, 01:18 PM)
Please stop argueing people. This is a really good thread and pic and I don't want it to get shut down.
[right][snapback]436209[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]436209[/snapback][/right]
It really doesn't matter anyways cause the picture is fake, and there really is no more to discuss.
QUOTE
If you actually looked at any of the link's I provided throughout this thread you would realize there is proof that offers fact that it IS fake.
If you'd read all of what I said you'd see I wasn't talking about the picture. Now we're on topic those links don't provide ANY evibdence at all, let alone conclusive.
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 4 2005, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE
If you actually looked at any of the link's I provided throughout this thread you would realize there is proof that offers fact that it IS fake.
If you'd read all of what I said you'd see I wasn't talking about the picture. Now we're on topic those links don't provide ANY evibdence at all, let alone conclusive.
[right][snapback]436330[/snapback][/right]
Oh, I guess the opinions of the experts don't convince you.
...Alright, tell me how its not a hoax.
QUOTE(Diebytheflyguy @ Jan 4 2005, 12:06 PM)
QUOTE(Walken @ Jan 4 2005, 02:59 PM)
QUOTE
If you actually looked at any of the link's I provided throughout this thread you would realize there is proof that offers fact that it IS fake.
If you'd read all of what I said you'd see I wasn't talking about the picture. Now we're on topic those links don't provide ANY evibdence at all, let alone conclusive.
[right][snapback]436330[/snapback][/right]
Oh, I guess the opinions of the experts don't convince you.
...Alright, tell me how its not a hoax.
[right][snapback]436334[/snapback][/right]
It's possible that it is a hoax,but there is NO HARD EVIDENCE STATING THAT THIS IS FAKE.Your links show that some experts believe it's fake,but many others still believe that it is a plesiosaur.
You will never be convinced of anything. Why are you so desperate to believe some of this stuff?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.