Photograph shows alleged 'monster' emerging from the Hudson River

[UM-Bot]

An image shows what appears to be some sort of serpent-like creature in New York's Hudson River.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/375643/photograph-shows-alleged-monster-emerging-from-the-hudson-river

[Abramelin]

It's most probably a tree.

[Trelane]

Unfortunately without another photo or something to help provide scale, it's difficult to say what it could be.

[Essan]

6 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Unfortunately without another photo or something to help provide scale, it's difficult to say what it could be.

Aye that's the problem with modern digital photography - whether using camera or phone - people can only ever take one single  picture, instead of dozens at different levels of zoom,  including additional ones afterwards, and even some video, to provide full context. 

Applies equally with UFOs, Ghosts and other phenomenon

[Jon the frog]

With only one picture like this ? It's a tree.

[joseraul]

The world has upset the Orca's and the Nessie's 

[MysteryMike]

Floating log. Move along.

Could even be a whale.

[Chaldon]

That a picture of something unrecognizable. "Need more input!" As long as there's no more input, it's just the three dark shapes. Move along. What's the point of guesswork, besides more mythmaking?.. Still, myths are fun. 😀 It's always better to live thinking "what if" than "it can't be". But the best thinking is "it can be", of course.

[Cho Jinn]

Interesting.  Not a tree, not a whale, not a sturgeon.  Again, would have been great to have, you know, maybe a second photo?  Click the red circle on screen twice?  Maybe use your finger to move over to "video" and press the red button again?  No?  Ok.

[ercbreeze]

This article calls a branch a creature--will it call a rock a creature next?  And; doesn't the camera have a video feature?  I am sure the person who took the pic realized it was a branch and decided a video would ruin her fun!  😉

Edited March 28 by ercbreeze

[esoteric_toad]

I will never understand how someone can see something seemingly unknown and they only take a snap or two. Actually I can understand it, they likely knew exactly what it was and decided to have a bit of fun with the whole 'monster' thing. Critical thinking would say unless you absolutely could not take more pics or video (like you are being attacked by said boogeyman or shot at by aLiEn spaceship there is zero reason to not try and document the encounter as much as possible. JMO of course.

[+joc]

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It's most probably a tree.

It looks like a tree and rocks...and...I don't even think it is in the lake.  It looks like it is on the other side of the lake on the shore.  He probably took the picture from a boat.  The haze doesn't help but I'm pretty sure it is on the shore.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, MysteryMike said:

Floating log. Move along.

Could even be a whale.

A log... or a whale...

Yes! I can see the relation of the two. Good eye

 

/sarc

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

When we see just the one photo, an alarm goes off. Why just the one?

[The man in the tan jacket]

I don’t think people know what whales look like

[Buzz_Light_Year]

9 hours ago, joc said:

It looks like a tree and rocks...and...I don't even think it is in the lake.  It looks like it is on the other side of the lake on the shore.  He probably took the picture from a boat.  The haze doesn't help but I'm pretty sure it is on the shore.

Looks like whatever it is it's on a mud flat.

 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, The man in the tan jacket said:

I don’t think people know what whales look like

It could very well be whales.  That was actually my first thought...but alas,  whales live in the ocean!  Wait...that's not quite true!  And at a distance, with fog...  Yeah, I'm thinking whales as well now!

 

[+joc]

11 hours ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

When we see just the one photo, an alarm goes off. Why just the one?

Because if  you are fortunate enough to see something like that...you don't want to miss it trying to capture it on video or taking a picture of it.  Whales!

[+joc]

3 hours ago, The man in the tan jacket said:

I don’t think people know what whales look like

My post to you was actually going to be this:

I do think people know that whales don't live in rivers. 

But then I thought, Hmmm I should probably google that first...and...then I found these videos. wallah...I didn't know.  I do now. I'm going with Whales. 

 

[papageorge1]

My leading thought is, like Bigfoot, these things are real but not regular animals and not full-time residents of our normal three-dimensional physical plane.

[+joc]

4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My leading thought is, like Bigfoot, these things are real but not regular animals and not full-time residents of our normal three-dimensional physical plane.

Why is your leading thought that they are real?   Because a lot of people said they saw something?  Or was it the blurry videos?  

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, joc said:

Why is your leading thought that they are real?   Because a lot of people said they saw something?  Or was it the blurry videos?  

With Bigfoot it is high quality videos (such as Patterson) and compelling testimony of so many competent people. So, a precedence for these lake monsters being real and not full-time residents of our normal three-dimensional physical plane is set by Bigfoot. Being typically underwater creatures their number of sighting should be less frequent than land cryptids. 

And also. I consider psychic/channeled sources that tell us these things are real.

The 'all hoax/misidentification' theory you may espouse has appeal by its simplicity but too much says otherwise in my fairest judgment. I already hold this to be a universe still far beyond our scientific understanding.

 

 

[+joc]

5 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

With Bigfoot it is high quality videos (such as Patterson) and compelling testimony of so many competent people. So, a precedence for these lake monsters being real and not full-time residents of our normal three-dimensional physical plane is set by Bigfoot. Being typically underwater creatures their number of sighting should be less frequent than land cryptids. 

And also. I consider psychic/channeled sources that tell us these things are real.

The 'all hoax/misidentification' theory you may espouse has appeal by its simplicity but too much says otherwise in my fairest judgment. I already hold this to be a universe still far beyond our scientific understanding.

 

 

 The Patterson video is obviously a hoax.  Everyone but  you apparently believes the video is a hoax.  It is very, very obvious that it was a staged event.  The 'big foot' is actually a man in a suit.

 

[papageorge1]

Just now, joc said:

 The Patterson video is obviously a hoax.  Everyone but  you apparently believes the video is a hoax.  It is very, very obvious that it was a staged event.  The 'big foot' is actually a man in a suit.

 

I have heard many experts contradict what you are saying (probably the majority). And just the fact that you state it with such finality is all the evidence I need to consider you a dogmatic nonbeliever. Debate against that mentality becomes a fool's errand (but one I engage in too often, LOL).

 

[iAlrakis]

18 hours ago, ercbreeze said:

This article calls a branch a creature--will it call a rock a creature next?  And; doesn't the camera have a video feature?  I am sure the person who took the pic realized it was a branch and decided a video would ruin her fun!  😉

a branch comes from a tree, which starts small, gets bigger so it's living, hence a creature? ;-)