Someone asked for a blow up

LOL, good job too... with ThaiMysteries post of the source of the Mastodon image, that pretty much put's this hoax to bed...

Why do you think?
because they're fake.

Okay here are my contributions to whether this is a fake or not... I know basic photoshop and i know that this would NOT NOT NOT be an easy photoshop, and something this small would make it almost impossible to clean up lines and make pixels look perfect. There is almost no sign of that "photoshopped" touch often attributed to bad lighting (this lighting seems perfect) What i DO know though, is elephants... I love to study zoology and i can definitely say that this not a living species of elephant (Loxodonta cyclotis, Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus) I also started looking up some mastodon facts and this thing has got TONS of credit going for where it was found (a perfect environmental match to its predicted lifestyle), and it has staggering anotomical accuracy.



Firstly, this is NOT A BEARS BODY just take alook for yourself, none of the proportions match up, infact none of the proportions are even CLOSE -- and the waking and splashing looks BIG like it was caused by a huge animal.


Its definitely NOT an asiatic elephant, NONE of the features (save for small ears) of asian elephants are present on this animal and the skeletal proportions don't match up at all - high double domed head is absent, as well as the highly arched back... plus the tusks point forward not downward.


African elephant skeleton looks closer, but it definitely does not match. Also, african elephants have a very deep dip in their back and this creature only appears to have a slight dip (which may be an illusion due to the small shoulder hump of muscle mass that mastodons had on their necks). Also the african elephants body looks taller than it is long, and this is not so for the mastodon


With a mastodon skeleton overlayed on top of the image you can definitely see that this has GOT to be what this animal is.


As far as photoshopping goes, I see no apparant give aways that are associated with photoshop. The biggest one being lighting, and repetition of certain elements that do not repeat (water for example... and this image has 2 clearly different splashes indicating 2 different moments in time)

Im unsure about the story still but these pictures are pretty damn convincing, I don't think its EXACTLY the same as the wikipedia rendering, i just think that the wikipedia rendering is a damn good illustration of a mastodon, and therefore if this photograph (of a real mastodon) is genuine, than it just goes to show u that modern scientists predict well. OR maybe they know something that we don't.... The biggest holes with the story were "shouldn't this be the find of the century?". Maybe, or maybe scientists already KNOW about it, as well as Denali park rangers, and for the sake of the species survival it ISN'T MENTIONED.... this sort of thing is seen on Tasmania to this day, where it is estimated that thousands of people have seen thylacines but they refuse to talk about it for the sake of the preservation of the last remaining species. I still can't say this is a fake, sorry.

IMO, any "apparant give aways" were hidden by the motion blur... and I think the similarity with the Wiki picture is more than coincidental...

I agree. The Wiki pic has way too many of the excact features as the so called living one. Also, if it was traveling through water that deep it would have been moving slow enough to snap a better pic. That's a pretty easy photoshop.

Wow, you sure are gullible or maybe you just want to believe so badly. Perhaps the OP's friend is playing an April fools joke on him/

What's this, an eye? At any rate pixelation is strange

You can repost all you want. They are so blurry as to be worthless. I call BS.

it could be real.. i mean he did take them on his cell phone so i can see where the blur is coming from cell phone pics arnt that clear. so i believe ya till proven wrong.

Uh, who goes to Denali National Park and doesn't take a real camera?

Great point. Another of many flaws in the story.

Its usually works better the other way.Don't believe until proven.

Exactly. Besides, I think this case is closed considering the wikipedia picture that was posted earlier.

what a coincidence... a trustworthy friend of mine was vacationing in Alaska to, he say's he only had one frame of film left in the camera, I totally believe he's telling the truth...

heres the picture, no way its a fake

JK

I don't know I would have to see a better picture to say real. I have taken lots of pictures of wildlife and never got one that bad unless it is the cheapest camera in the world. If there are mastadons, Alaska is a big place they could be living there and nobody sees them. Iroqoi if your buddy is telling the truth he needs to go back out there with a better camera and try to get a good shot. If there is one living out there and you got good pictures of it they would be worth some money. Might want to take a sealed film camera which can't be tampered with along.

Saxon shame on you that is the picture from Wiki photo-shopped on a background.

Nobody goes into the wilderness with their camera speed set so low or 100 speed film. It looks like a elephant that has been colored. The background bush is too light green and to weedy to be evergreens too which is 98% of Denali's flora.

Lapiche

Then shame on the OP as well. they look like the same Wiki picture to me.

Dear people who post past this point.

PLEASE READ ALL THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD!

We had already proven that these pictures are fake.

Yep. Exact same pic. Youd think they would have at least used a less accsesable ( ) pic for the hoax. sorry I cant spell today

Ouch. Both pics have the exact same lighting effect on them as well, nice try at a fake though, if it wasn't blurry (and possibly had video, although not too many tourists take video cameras to national parks) I may have believed it.

really blurry the tusks look like part of the fallen tree it's really hairyI belive in most things but im unsure of this one.

*cough*

I hope your friend copyrighted the photographs, somebody already fixed it up to look real good and uploaded it to Wikipedia! You better get a lawyer to make sure they don't start making money of it!

Your attempts at replicating this photograph STILL look very fake, no the lighting in your image does not match the lighting on the animal --- The original photograph still looks genuine, you guys have to at least accept the fact that if somebody photoshopped this they did a DAMN good job because none of you have created an image that looks that real. Until somebody inserts a mastodon seemlessly into an environment with no apparant "photoshopping" touches than This image is still not conclusively proven as a fraud. I'm skeptical and teetering towards it as some sort of fraud simply because the story is a little bit out there, but as far as the IMAGE goes, the original is WAY more succesfull at being "convincingly" genuine than any of your attempts to replicate. You all yell photoshop but none of you can replicate it even when u add blurs, blurryness doesn't fix everything, the coloring is off, and the lighting is off, and it just doesnt feel right in its overall depth and perspective.

So anyways what am i saying? --- If it is a fake than why can't you guys substantially show how it was faked.

I didn't post the images. I wasn't talking about how real it looked or how good the people are at Photoshop. I am comparing the images (from the OP's pic's, the image from Wiki and the second one in my quote) and the features of the 'mastodon' are identical, just edited. The lighting is on the same spots, there is a dark spot around the neck on each of them, they are in the same positions (just that the legs have been covered up with water in the OP's pics) if you need to, take the images into Photoshop (or even paint), make them both the same size and compare!

I have used Photoshop for years (although I don't actually have a copy) and am pretty good with it.

Because it takes a hell of a long time to do make something look decent with photoshop and I'm not prepared to waste that for the sake of making a point, I doubt any one else wants to either. If we did want to, however...



No, of course not.

Also, I would like to point to a thread that shows what Photoshop is actually capable of (Just to prove a point).
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p;#entry1621190

Thank you. I think that is sufficient evidence that is case is closed.

and there you have it folks. Good one Raptor.

lol simply shows how wikipedia and photoshop are used to create modern day myths. Now the real question is, wtf is wrong with the person who made those photographs? What would they possibly be trying to prove?

Humor i guess... your overlay convinces me now that it is simply from wikipedia . and as soon as i realized how obvious it was i just sort of snickered to myself about person who may or may not know they fooled us all (including the skeptics)... because not only were some of us gullible, others of us (who didn't believe it authentic) were thinking "That picture is a bear, i can see its paw! and its eyes!" and "Its clearly a modern day elephant" (way off track of what the image really contained). I find it almost a bit funny but that could just be because im trying not to be so embarrased for actually falling for it. I have a feeling either the OP is playing a joke on us, OR his friend played an April fools joke on HIM. or this could have been circulating elsewhere... I don't know either way I'm willing to let it go *sighs

I'm convinced.

Huh. Is this thread still going?

Nah ! until the mods closed it.

Hahahaha. Thanks. That made my day. I have always secretly suspected the Earth was only 6.0 years old. That would explain why I can't remember anything that happened 7 years ago.
Ark. That's great.
Anyway, as far as time (real time, I mean) is concerned 6,000 years is nothing, so no...the Earth is nowhere near as young as 6,000 years old.

This could have been a great submission on my Fake Crypto Photo Contest....... Props to who did THIS manip!

Sorry, but i'm not fooled.....

At this point I think the thread should be locked or deleted. We've entertained this so and so for long enough, don't you think?

Don't know about you guys, but I don't like it when people try to play me like a fool.

I agree. Kudos to Thai Mysteries for his detective work. Closed.