This applies to looking for evidence that it is a hoax, using photo-manipulation, such as photoshop or double exposure.
No method of photo-manipulation is completely flawless. The universal method for looking for photo-manipulation is looking at lighting effects.
Notice how the lighting of cryptozoological creatures in early photographs
) are completely different to it's
surroundings. Ofcourse technology and methods were simple, but the methods are basically still the same.
Don't just look at the colouring between the animal and it's surroundings. Look at the shading. Is the shadow the same shade, angle and direction of
the shadows in the surrounding? Does the animal even have a shadow?
Please note that looking for lighting effects do not apply with photographs taken at night using nightvision.
Look at the surrounding environment in relation to the creature. Make sure it is viable.
: A picture of a wooly mammoth or bigfoot in the desert is not viable.
: A 'Loch Ness Monster
' type animal in a small or desolate lake is not viable.
Can it survive in it's surroundings?
Has it got places that it can evade sightings?
Knowing the evironment first hand will be an advantage.
This applies to a picture taken of an object or area, only to have the unusual animal discovered after development.
You have to ask yourself several questions. What is the photograph of? Why would someone take the picture of the object or area?
Also keep in mind, if the creature in question is in the center of the picture, it is unlikely that it was purely 'coincidental.'
If alive, look at the body language of the animal. Does it look to be in attack mode, fleeing, or just wandering around?
This is not as daunting as it sounds. Do not look at the features of the animal. You should rather look at it's silhouette.
If it appears to be stalking, what prey is visible?
If evading, but not evading the cameraman, what is it evading?
Is it facing the camera?
Look for anything that seems out of place or out of the ordinary.
You should also look at the size relativity of the creature. Not only relative to it's surroundings, but also relativity to itself.
: Compare the size of a small birds feathers to a large bird's.
A cryptozoological cliche is niether good nor bad. It does not support that it is a hoax, nor does it help prove it as fact.
Cryptozoological cliches include, but are not limited to:
- Hump-backs in aquatic serpents.
- Fuzzy or out of focus pictures.
- Only a glance or a few seconds of film.
- Described as having red or glowing eyes.
- Believed to be carnivorous.
- Situations or conditions preventing pursuit or capture.
What not to do.
Do not say it is fraudulent without giving reason.
Do not keep to yourself. You may see or know something that other people may not
Do not take any of what I have said as fact. Due to the very nature of cryptozoology, the creature is unknown. It's rules may not apply to the rules
of other animals.
Do not expect to have other people to believe that your own personal sightings are fact.
Do not take witness accounts as fact.
I hope this helps, and happy hunting!
Feel free to add any principal point I may have missed.