I have a friend from Fairbanks who recently re-visited Denali National Park in Alaska and I absolutely believe that he has found, and photographed a living relic of North America's past. Shortly before he even sent me the pictures I remember him leaving me a frantic voice mail while he was on his Denali trip, he sounded terrified as he was trying to explain over the phone that he had seen some sort of huge beast that was WAY bigger than a moose or a bear, and he said it looked just like a hairy elephant and it must have been a woolly mammoth or something. Shockingly he said he got pictures with his phone. I called him back that same evening that he left me the voice mail, but i couldnt get a hold of him (later i found out his battery was dead because he kept reviewing his pictures that he got, he was evidently in total disbelief that he actually got some sort of proof) - after he got to his car a few days later, he called me, sent me pictures, and told me everything.

Everything about his story added up, including his muddy clothes that got ruined in the marsh that he was splashing through while in pursuit of the animal. According to him the animal saw him first, and started heading for the shore long before he even realized what was infront of him. He said he was terrified once he saw it clearly and didn't want to get too close because the creature looked immense, and it was creating a huge wake in the water. He didn't get to snap a photograph until the creature was already in the shallows of the water, and even the pictures that he got easily capture the power of this animal, as you can see by the large wake and huge splashes. I wish he would have gotten a clearer picture but I can't blame him for having such unsteady hands on uneven ground and after seeing such a terrifyingly huge animal. He only got 2 good pictures before the animal was out of the water and long gone into the surrounding forest, and he said he did NOT want to follow it on land (I don't blame him).


---


After I examined these photographs, and of course after hearing his detailed descriptions of the entire set of events that unfolded when he found the animal, I have come to the conclusion that this animal is either a Mammoth or a Mastodon, -- more likely being the latter of the two, based on where it was found, and a few of the anotomical features that it posessed (the tusks look rather straight to me).

Many Natives of the Canadian and Alaskan north, claim that they have seen Mastodons or Mammoths countless times and we often blatently ignore them with no disregard because they never bring back pictures/photos/skeletons as proof. For the first time EVER we now have photographic proof that these animals still exist... These pictures and my friends stories give me the CHILLS, that animal is CLEARLY a mastodon or mammoth, I'm a former skeptic who is now convinced that these animals exist.

Hiya IraqoiAmerican. Welcome to the forum .

Considering the Mastodon has been extinct for 10,000 years, and the apparent photoshoped qualities of the picture; I'm going to have to side with the unbelievers this time, sorry!

Looks like a bear photoshoped with an elephants head! I must say that I do not believe this picture is credible at all. Sorry.

Looks like an elephant.

Welcome IraqoiAmerican.

BTW, why did you remove the third pic?

picture number 3 is very unclear, these pictures aren't fake, my friend is not a liar and I believe him 100 percent. I can repost picture number 3 if you want

Looks like an elephant to me http://www.naturephoto-cz.com/photos/sevci...ta-africana.jpg
http://www.mammalogy.org/mil_images/images/mid/1061.jpg

And I don't see how you are seeing straight tusks in that picture. They clearly have some curviture to them.

They do have curvyness, but i thought mammoths have loopy tusks, im not an expert -- i want to hear more opinions before i call these fakes, i still believe my friend

They have absolutely huge curvey tusks. Just google search some pictures and that should be enough evidence for you.

Even if it is an elephant, what is it doing in Alaska? How did it get there?

It appears to be an Asian elephant due to the size of it's ears, but it's hard to tell because of all the blur.
If this story and photo's are genuine, an Asian elephant living in the wild in Alaska, needs further investigation.
I wish the picture's contained an object near the elephant so that we could gage it's size.



The picture's don't look photoshopped.

http://www.carlwozniak.com/earth/quater/qua07b.gif


they look slightly curved just like the pictures, im not the only one who believes mastodons still exist, if bigfoot exists with absolutely no fossil record in north america and only eyewitness accounts and photographs to go by, than why is it so hard to believe that mastodons exist to this day, we have fossil proof that they are real animals, and many eyewitness accounts from the past few hundred years, in heavily wooded areas that rarely come in contact with humans... U can see an elephant but i see a mastodon (which is also shaped like an elephant), elephants dont have hair though and this animal looks like it has brown hair, Not only do i have pictures but my friend was very detailed in his description and i don't beleive he would make it up for nothing

What he said. In fact that's exactly what it looks like. And the tusks bend in completely the wrong direction. Even if it was an infant with smaller tusks...they go the wrong way.

That looks like an everyday elephant and it doesn't appear to be too huge either.

does anybody have photo shop? and could they please blow up the pictures so we can see them better, and maybe enhance too

Here ya go..

It's to.. distorted to clear up... and blowing them up makes the distortion worse.

Not to mention... the distortion is totaly added by photoshop. There were a couple of filters slapped over that image.

I'm sorry, but I'm calling this fake.

too much prompting...
seems one be prepared to see large animals in that type of territory--
such as grizzlies and moose-
if i thought was such..i would definitely follow..
and if so why not report to park officials--footprints--helicopters....
be track evidence that could not be hid-
reckon they'd like see too...

Prove your point. Go get two normal photo's of elephants and replicate these supposed mastadon photos and show us how it's done.

Not going to find the same exact photo.. but I'll whip something up.


I mean, let's use some common sence ok?

It's blurry. For the love of the gods, why is every photo of some spactaculare animal that's either a crypted or extinct and now supposedly alive blurry?

Secondly, if it was in a natural park... then why hasn't it been seen before, not just that, but why hasn't it made news sources? Discovery should be all over this like Ted Kennedy is a martini.

To me it just looks like an elephant

The blur is the "fur"

I agree with most of what you say here, especially the fact that these supposed cryptid or extinct animal pics are always blurry.
Alaska's mountainous wilderness is so mammoth (no pun intended) though that you could hide the Titanic and never find it, so there could "possibly" be a spices of animal living in the area that man's not aware of.

Oh, and I hope you have better luck trying to replicate the motion blur with photoshop than I did. I couldn't get it to look the same, although admittedly I didn't spend a lot of time at it.

oh hay...

I found some real mastadons..



this one I actually used an indian elephant.. but then thought.. "meh... head's all wrong and I don't feel like spending hours fixing it..."


Basicaly I put a layer over the picture, set the layer filter to "color" and colored brown over the elephant. I then flattend the image and motioned blurred and added some cross hatching to give it an odd feel.

The mastadons are from a diarama (which the two in the origonal post could be from) and filtered it up the same.. sans the color layer. (i don't need to brown brown)

Not perfect, but whatchya get at 3am..

But common sence still is there. If these were real live mastadons, it would be all over the news, considering how they're supposed to be extinct. And they're not exactly as small as tasmanian wolves... Hidding isn't going to be /that/ easy. Even for the state that their supposidly in.

I wish it were an extinct elephant species. If those photos are real it is probably just an escaped zoo elephant or something.

Excellent job Silver Cougar!!

The fact that the photo's can be replicated means case closed in this court. We'll just have to wait for better evidence.
There's always the chance though.......

but a man was aware of...he say he saw--took pics even...
he tell it here- but not at time of sighting.....
coulda took to exact spot--plenty evidence still show....
on foot and / or by air

Considering the Earth is only 6.000 yrs old & that most of the dinosaurs
died out 4,400 years ago in the flood, but a few did survive that was on noahs ark..
spread out all over the globe but it is totoally possible. but it .. it is likely this picture you have got is real.. the main reason no one
ever tells these is because of a ridacule afriad of being laughed at.. but so what if some one is.. if they have seen one and got proof.. thats all they need they dont need to tell the world actually.. oh yes there were no millions of years either

"All the books said" ( the books dont know really ) but all dinosaurs did not die out "millions" of years ago, but... it was really only 4,400 years ago at the time of the flood. the earth is only 6,000 yrs old. there's a very big possibility that dinosaurs are still alive. for one thing, the loch Ness
Monster (a plesiosaur) and there are still
unexplored areas of the world, and underground caves. if you looked
hard enough you will find some sort of dinosaur. Well, they found the
Coelacanth which they think became extinct a very long time ago, and
they found a few just a few years ago.* Infact their are quite a bit still alive and living in difrent

parts of the world.. from venesuala to the bemi swamp to the congo and zimbabwe and alot of other places . Loch ness has a few too. there were no millions of years

As much as I would love to see a mastodon, (And initially this looks like one.) I don't think this is real.

The first pic looks like a bear with the top of it's head tilted toward the camera, so that both eye sockets can be seen. It looks to be eating something that is right on the root ball of that log.

The second looks like a bear pulling on what ever was probably nailed to the roots of that log.

If it IS real, then tell your friend to get the sheriff or State Police out there to locate and protect it. He'll likely make the national news, if not the world news. Good Luck!

Welcome to the UM forums Renfields37 Post away and have fun.

I think you may need to visit this link http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

most excellent - silver cougar !

cool link thozzman !

Hate to break it to you guy's as a Photographer of many decades I've checked the images and appear to be genuine...And is not an Elephant like the ones a member posted, the body shape is totaly different...Were they taken by digiatal or from a still camera?

I'm a die hard sceptic so you know, but these images are genuine.

I wanted to believe but after seeing this...i lost my interest.
Click to view attachment

ah.... another blurry syndrome.. hmm.... i believe those cryptid have telekinetic power that disrupted cam

http://www.meta-religion.com/Zoology/Excti...todon_still.htm



btw the photo definitely isn't a woolly mammoth But it does resemble a mastodon. And it also appears to be the right sort of habitat - open spruce forest. But. Most people wouldn't know that. Most people would automatically assume hairy elephant in northern climes = mammoth. Which means its either real, and the photographer knew more about prehistoric fauna than most people (even I had to check, as I've not studied mastodons), in order to make an immediate identification. Or its a hoax and he's done his research.

Well there are some compelling similarities between mastodons and the photos.

1. The ear size
2. Tusks are very similar
3. Humps on shoulders
4. Smaller body than elephant
5. The elongated shape of the head (no huge dome)

If we could only see the tail.
Mastodon's have long dark shaggy tails.

Going back to what Silver Cougar said, why are all these pics so blurry?
I know one thing, if I was convinced that I had photographed a supposed extinct species of animal, and they came out looking that blurry I'd be out trying to find it and take some good, clear shots.

Actually, I would have used all the space on my memory card (if digital), or every photo left on my 35mm, so why only two or three pics? Unfortunately, these photo's are not a smoking gun.
If I believed I had photographed a mastodon, I'd be out there everyday in order to get the million dollar shot.

To get a clear image of a wild animal in the wild isn’t an easy task. Forget about the documentaries we all see as they are all planned ahead with all cameras on tripods etc;

Now picture this, your out in the wild and you suddenly / unprepared for what you’re about to see then start taking some shots of an animal in the open wild, you will not have enough time to pull out the tripod out of your amazement or excitement are you?



Excellent question, that's for the author of this topic to clear up for us, "please".



Tha't right they are not the smoking gun even if they were pin sharp. They the images have to be examined by experts "looking at images and examing are two different things", so I agree with you here. I wouldn't even call this images "conclusive evidence" but worthy of examining, that's all.

That would explain the Sasquatch, the Chupacabra, the Loch Ness, Unicorns, Fairies, Extra-Terrestrials, etc. etc. etc.

Original version --- Enhance version
---

---

and this pic from Wikipedia

Higher resolution (1701 × 925 pixel, file size: 675 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)----> Click here.

IF the thing is real. Then that's pretty cool.

Who knows if it's a "mastadon" or an everyday Elephant.

wow they really took time to fake it.. good find there ThaiMysteries.
maybe theres the possibilities that many of that we considered relics still live upto now
consider one of the living fossils the ancient Coelacanth .

At least we now know it was not a bear with an elephants head, it was not an asiatic elephant, and it DID have hair

And that is linked to wikipedia, which now that I've looked at the wikipedia mastodon page it seems obvious that they just stole it from wikipedia and slopped it into a swamp.

or in an extremely unlikely scenario they really did manage to snap a shot of a mastodon because if wikipedias mastodon is anotomically correct, than this animal uncannily resembles it, more so than it does a modern elephant

lol it definitely wasn't a mammoth... these pics look pretty frickin' sweet, I like those re-constructions better than BBC's - I love wikipedia

Why are pictures that are associated with the paranormal or UFO's or anything freaky by nature always blurry , the pictures are always blurry ...i dont understand it , are these things that are being photographed putting off some unknown energy source that makes the camera go out of focus ???????????

I agree, the similarity to the picture posted by ThaiMysteries is striking... faked IMO

blurry because paranormal or out of the ordinary is also scary, and exhilarating, therefore a straight shot is usually unattainable? Thats usually the reasoning that follows.... and maybe in the case of UFOs and Ghosts they do put out some sort of energy!

*jumps up and down* eeeeeeeee! elephant!!

Funny why must it be wikipedia? there's so many other pictures out there

I lmao when Kretos posted it. Good job

credit goes to ThaiMysteries. i just quoted.

I believe you. Here's why:

First off, if this is a fake, it's a well-researched one. How many people have actually heard of the mastodon? I certainly hadn't before I checked this post out. Compared to the mammoth, it probably isn't that well-known.

Secondly the photographs look remarkably like the mastodon picture on Wikipedia, photoshop image or not.

And thirdly - there is a pretty solid story behind the photographs.

But - blurry is bad. One of the first photographs taken of the Loch Ness Monster turned out to be an extremely blurred photograph of a dog with a stick in its mouth.

people now and before likes to play camera tricks , also with the advance photo editing software that are available right now. it has improved the "faking" abilities of some believers.

*raises hand*


CALLED IT!