Inverted colors:




[edit on 6-1-2009 by spec_ops_wannabe]

The eye definitely looks photoshoop'd. Now, it could very well be a photo of an actual creature (like, as a fellow pointed out earlier in the thread, a moray eel), but the eyes shown in that pic are almost certainly edited. The mouth seems pretty dodgy, too - maybe they extended it? The teeth don't seem all THAT correct.

BUT, in the case that it is real, WOOHOO! Lake monsters! |D

plenty of things live in the ocean that we still havn't discovered.
for all we know it could be a bottom dwelling eel which is dying.
just like the Japanese Goblin shark would have been called shopped if it wasn't on a video for the world to see.
or even the Prehistoric Frilled Shark in Japan


the first time they sent a Platapus to the UK from Australia it was called a hoax by the scientific experts of the day.

so I hold my judgement on if it is real or fake, but there are plenty of wierd things out there in the ocean.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by munkey66]
and yes I do realize the creature in question was meant to be photographed in a lake, that still does not alter the facts that they are discovering new species all the time.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by munkey66]

My opinion:

it was a photo of a dolphin popping it's head out from the water.

Someone took a photo of that and had some fun with it.

CHEERS

The spaces between the teeth look way too dark compared to all of the other shadows in the rest of the photo.

Edit: Personally I think it's a photoshopped log.

[edit on 1/6/2009 by Ablastard]

Originally posted by Peronemlin

Is this real? is this a log with photoshoped eyes and teeth? I don't know... it looks too good to be true.

There is no way to give an educated opinion based on these low res images from the Internet. Log sounds right to me. Looks like a log with an eye added to where a knot was and teeth added to a crack that happens to be in the log.

Find a copy of the original file uncompressed with EXIF data attached and I could perhaps tell you. Even better if it is a film camera get me the negative. Otherwise?

Here's what I see. A lot of light shimmer on the water behind the monster head, and a good bit of light on the top of the monsters head. It doesn't quite seem consistent with the lighting of the rest of the water.

Troy

[edit on 6-1-2009 by cybertroy]

It looks just like the dinosaurs from the discovery channels prehistoric planet. not the cgi, but the animatronic ones.

If it was real I would say great picture but I doubt it is since 99%-100% of the time the photos end up being fakes. It's an elaborate fake, I'll give them that. I agree with another poster, if the person who took the photo doesn’t come forward and release the original then speculating is the best we can do. I don’t think you can prove this is fake or support that it is real. It’s just another supposed creature photo on the internet.

I've worked a bit with potography and the exposure time that would be required for that angle in the sunlight, with that much detail in the high shadow side, would be too long to get a unblurred photo of the subject. unless he was just sitting there in the water, but the water rippels suggest otherwise.

why only one picture? looks like a giant raisin or turd with eyes and mouth.

Considering how difficult it is to photograph an aquatic animal from the surface, this photo is excellent.

That said, I'm not really convinced. The eye immediately reminded me of a bad Asian monster movie's monster prop (the likes of Godzilla). Illusionsaregrander is spot on - typically reptilian.

When zoomed (800-1000%) you'll notice a haziness around the eye and ear part, which is inconsistent with the rest of the grain/pixelation.

It's difficult to tell the size of the body, but considering the angle of the head (and the bit of body you can see under the surface) it would appear to have a very short body. Too short.

And then the usual question - why only one photo? The animal seems calm and not really going anywhere. Considering the distance and the clarity of the image - why is there only one? A good (or even amateur) photographer would have taken several photos.

My vote would be a photo-chopped otter. I suppose "log" isn't out of the question either.

BUT - to conclude - the existence of this animal is far from impossible. I would love for this photo to be real - but in my eyes the evidence is against it.

Kinda looks like a turtle to me.

has the image been cropped? There is no way to get a scale. Ut could be 20 feet or 20 inches long.