It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cyclops Shark?? Interesting pictures

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
www.buzzle.com...


The gestation period lasts for a year after which the bull shark gives birth to as many as 13 young pups.


It probably isn't radiation (Fukushima anyway), it the thing is real, as the gestation period for the bull shark is 1 year.




posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DisturbedToo

Originally posted by mb2591
What's the watermark on the first picture?

I noticed that as well. There is a watermark on the second pic too. from what I can make out it's "PISCLS" ??

I think the watermark says 'PISCES," but I am not sure why.
Excuse my professional tracing job.
It's hard to see the entire 'C' but I think the 'C' is actually an image of a shark, or some sort of tail that is curved.




 
 

reply to post by Butterbone

Originally posted by Butterbone
  • 2 very subtle but perfectly straight lines on the left and top of the "eye" area.
  • an indexed block just to the right of the mans thumb
  • a central smudge of pixels through the center of the eye itself.
  • dark lines that make up the outline of the eye are more aliased than the dark lines on the body of the shark and the mans fingers touching the shark.


  • I tried to not cover any of it, but I think these are what you were referring to?


    edit on 7/1/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:17 PM
    link   
    Any one every seen the movie Cabin Boy (1994)? I was going to try and find the shark man scene from the moive but I can find it online any where. Any have the moive the scene starts about at the 37 minute mark.
    edit on 7/1/2011 by fixer1967 because: spelling



    posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 03:29 PM
    link   
    Interesting picture!! Even if its a hoax!!



    posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by BrokenCircles

    Originally posted by DisturbedToo

    Originally posted by mb2591
    What's the watermark on the first picture?

    I noticed that as well. There is a watermark on the second pic too. from what I can make out it's "PISCLS" ??

    I think the watermark says 'PISCES," but I am not sure why.
    Excuse my professional tracing job.
    It's hard to see the entire 'C' but I think the 'C' is actually an image of a shark, or some sort of tail that is curved.




     
     

    reply to post by Butterbone

    Originally posted by Butterbone
  • 2 very subtle but perfectly straight lines on the left and top of the "eye" area.
  • an indexed block just to the right of the mans thumb
  • a central smudge of pixels through the center of the eye itself.
  • dark lines that make up the outline of the eye are more aliased than the dark lines on the body of the shark and the mans fingers touching the shark.


  • I tried to not cover any of it, but I think these are what you were referring to?


    edit on 7/1/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



    Yeah great job! A coworker actually came in while I was going over it and pointed out a few more things. I just got home about a half hour ago, but I planned to outline those things at home.

    There is also the overall "outline" of the eye. It's actually drawn in. There is no lighting condition that either of us could imagine or recreate that could replicate two black lines that begin the shape of the whole eye, on the lower right portion of the eye. It's not shadow and it's not a deep enough crease to create those black lines.
    With the aliasing as dramatic as it is compared to the rest of the object, the only conclusion we could agree on is hand drawn.
    I'll post up my own observations at some point tonight or tomorrow.

    At minimum it is a really good photo shop job. The blending is good. And the overall creation is well balanced and just plain "neat".



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:07 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Butterbone

    Originally posted by BrokenCircles

    Originally posted by DisturbedToo

    Originally posted by mb2591
    What's the watermark on the first picture?

    I noticed that as well. There is a watermark on the second pic too. from what I can make out it's "PISCLS" ??

    I think the watermark says 'PISCES," but I am not sure why.
    Excuse my professional tracing job.
    It's hard to see the entire 'C' but I think the 'C' is actually an image of a shark, or some sort of tail that is curved.




    .


    Good catch
    According to the article the fishing trip was through Pisces Sportfishing Fleet

    www.loscabosguide.com...



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:30 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Butterbone

    There is no lighting condition that either of us could imagine or recreate that could replicate two black lines that begin the shape of the whole eye, on the lower right portion of the eye.

    I was actually looking at that part slightly differently. To me, those lines seemed more natural, than the blending above the eye. The area around 11:30 to 2:00, seems to be solid, and blend directly from the eye into the skin(??). Kind of blurred, but I wasn't sure if that was just from the quality of the image, along with my re-sizing/enlarging.

    The part by his thumb (where I put the orange arrow), is what looked the most 'out of place' to me.

    I don't really know much about photo editing though.
    I just sometimes enjoy playing around with MS Paint.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:36 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Pauligirl
    Good catch
    According to the article the fishing trip was through Pisces Sportfishing Fleet

    www.loscabosguide.com...

    aahh. It's a Swordfish


    I didn't even see that in the article. I was trying to find the site. I thought maybe it was something like that, but I was searching Pisces.com.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 12:41 AM
    link   
    This is a simple examination. Without access to files and so on....you know.

    Step 1 is to isolate the area that is most questionable. I'm not saying multiple aspects of the image have or have not been manipulated, just that happy face eyeball is the easiest place to start.


    Crop it, blow it up 2 or 3 times and look for any issues that do not look like they were caused
    by bicubic interpolation. If you use bilinear, you can increase the amount of aliasing artifacts.
    Bicubic (smoother) works best for upsampling because even though we know that the
    data is getting "changed" the interpolation is designed to create smoother transitions.
    This means that things like perfectly straight lines, and really fine aliased edges will not be
    erased by new colors being created from subdividing existing pixels.

    It can enhance existing patterns though, so once you upsample the crop the next thing you
    want to apply is Image/Adjustments/Equalize.
    This is Step 2.
    Equalize averages out the light and dark. Usually right after you equalize shopped images you can
    easily pick out cut lines, blends and other "oddities".
    As soon as equalize got applied to this image, several blends and straight lines and "cuts" seemed to pop out.


    #1. This is an odd area because there is a blend here where the color indexes has been averaged with smudge
    most likely. And the lines are not as even as natural shadow would be there. This is probably due to someone
    trying to smooth smudge with a mouse and not using a tablet and stylus.
    #2. Can you see how after equalized there is change in the color of the darkness of the shadow? There is nothing in
    that region that looks like it is a separate item that should be changing the color. This area will become more
    obvious in step 2 when we invert the equalized image.
    #3. Big smudge. looks very much like smudge was applied liberally.
    #4. This is more subtle but when you zoom in on that area there are several issues I see. There are 3 diagonal lines
    that remain straight even as they cross what is implied to be a very curvy and rounded surface. And the lower right
    "cheek" has both earmarks of cloning repeat patterns and smudges off to the right.

    On to step 3.



    Image/Adjustments/Invert.

    #1. Once you invert the image color you can start to see perfectly straight lines on pixels on what is supposed to be
    a curved surface. These are cut lines where another image part or separate image was cut and dropped into the
    composite image. So these two straight lines intersect "under" the thumb. This isn't a big deal at all. You can make
    as many layers up and down as you want, and I can tell you often times to get a specific lighting effect in an image
    you will stack 10 levels at varying blend percentages to get real depth.
    #2 Remember in the step 2 image how I said the color was different "in" the shadow. Well you can see now inverted
    that it is not just part of the hand image, but it actually overlays the "fish cheek" in a totally unnatural way and
    cuts in mechanically then fades and smudges out.
    #3 The NOT curviness of our diagonal lines really jumps out now.

    #4 and 5 both share similar issues with tightly repeating patterns of pixel clumps in a localized area. Make no mistake
    this is not sloppy work. This took some patience, and then there is an attempt to smudge the clone areas to create a
    a less visible "edge".

    #6. See that change of color in a straight line down the center of the box on #6. On upsample this line got spread out and
    new colors were created from the average of what existed. And it just so happens to have sampled in a straight line.
    Highly improbable in a natural image. And there is evidence of smudgery on the right hand side of the line.

    Normally I go through a handful of other filters and adjustments, like adding one color across the board and increasing
    its saturation. This lets you see when a dominant color in a cut and paste or clone starts to jump out.
    There is also messing with the exposure. You can sometimes get pastes and clone patterns to jump out when you increase the
    exposure of an image.

    All of this is the simple "dirty" way to examine images and determine whether they are "shopped". Without being able to access original
    files and so on, you have to rely on common sense and the probability that X number of mechanical anomalies will appear in one
    focused area of a suspect photo.

    All these "instructions" and tools by the way are for photoshop. I think these tools can still be found in even really old "virtually free" versions like Photoshop 5. I am using CS4.
    edit on 2-7-2011 by Butterbone because: sourcing of tool info.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:17 AM
    link   
    It looks like it should be on Sesame St
    yomp yomp yomp...



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 05:48 AM
    link   
    That eye just looks too fake to me. Are there any pictures of other kinds of sharks with two eyes that look anything like that one eye? I do not think it looks like photo manipulation as much as it just looks like corpse manipulation to me. Then again, weirder things have been born, right?



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:23 AM
    link   
    Any one find that Cabin Boy secne I was talking about. It is funny and goes well with this thread.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:12 AM
    link   
    I would thin it's a fake for the simple reason of that not being where any eye would be on a shark. Why would an eye grow below the nose area?

    Just doesn't make sense.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 09:37 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by fixer1967
    Any one find that Cabin Boy secne I was talking about. It is funny and goes well with this thread.


    Nope but I do have it on DVD right here because I was one of the 4 people that liked it enough to buy it. David Letterman's finest acting moment ever in that movie.



    posted on Jul, 2 2011 @ 07:22 PM
    link   
    For some reason I find that little cyclops shark adorable. Cyclopian mutations certainly do occur in nature, but I believe the offspring does not live very long. As weird as it looks, this cute little shark is entirely plausible, although it would not have had a very long life.



    posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:47 PM
    link   
    The eye looks so fake. If it was dead it would be grey and dull... lifeless... not something that looks taxidermied...
    And the missing gills was already mentioned...

    ..also, arn't sharks born with teeth? They don't drink milk obviously.
    edit on 7-7-2011 by SalientSkivvy because: (no reason given)



    posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 02:39 AM
    link   
    I'm not an expert in photoshop...but it looks fake.



    posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:45 AM
    link   
    The reason there is a line thru the center of the eye is because thats where the two eyes were forming and beiginning to seperate but stopped, thats probably why the cyclops eyeball is a lot larger than we are accustomed to seeing. This condition can happen to all kinds of different animals and humans and the eye is typically much larger. Interesting stuff! thanks for sharing



    posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:54 AM
    link   
    so fake, ive got a one eyed shark but that one i cant take a picture of, and yes its real.



    posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 05:42 AM
    link   
    There is an invisible hoax stamp on this thread or it happened? Lol! And for that S&F




    top topics



     
    4
    << 1    3 >>

    log in

    join