Comments on: Mystery Fish Head Closeup

By: depthors

depthors — Sat, 17 May 2008 03:05:16 +0000

in order to say that this photo is not a fake you would have to have a good bit of knowledge on fish and sharks. first i think its real. if you look at it the way i do you may think so to. first off the mouth isnt as big as you guys are thinking. the mouth is at the very tip of the head if you look you can see the opening and where the top of the mouth and bottom seperate, it doesnt extend all the way to the back of the head, it is only about 4 or 5 inches into the head, then it stops, it looks to me like the fishermen did either 1 of 2 things. they either slit the shark from his mouth all the way back and then up making the illusion that it is smiling (keep in mind the time this picture was taken, the quality isnt that good, or they slit its throat and used the blood to draw the smile on, to make a postcard picture interesting. i do think that all the skeptisism is coming from the fact that this picture was taken so long ago that most people dont realize that the quality is crap, some features arent as pronounced as they would be if taken today, the pictures looked more dull, shading not fully enhanced and such. look at the pictures closley and you will see what i mean

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Sun, 12 Feb 2006 02:14:14 +0000

So, I think we need an overall vote:
Fish
Paper Mache
Snake
Mutilated Lizard
Mosasaur

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:43:28 +0000

maybe a predator

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:17:41 +0000

Those lines are definitely scars.

By: CryptoInformant

CryptoInformant — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 01:14:58 +0000

If you look at Arithon’s sharpened version, you see that the mouth and the last upward part of that silly grin are not connected. Instead, that last part is a natural marking, possibly to make the mouth look bigger. I personally think it is a shellfish eating mosasaur. The wound behind the head is about right for where a front flipper would be, and the back flipper on that side appears to be folded over, and the tailfin is out of the picture, but still there. The head is obviously reptilian, and aquatic, but not a turtle either, and anacondas don’t come this close to sea. As noted earlier, the head size/body size ratio is to high for a snake, but not for a mosasaur.

CASE CLOSED
This is either a filter feeder or a shell cruncher, but either way a mosasaur!

By: bccryptid

bccryptid — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 01:03:34 +0000

It looks like it’s made out of paper mache to me, especially the head, which definitely looks like paper, and not a very good job at that. Yes it does look rather like a tiger or sleeper shark, but the missing gills and strange ‘giant’ jaw look like the work of bad hoax artistry rather than still life to me. The ‘tail’ is particularly bad. If this isn’t a completely fabricated model hoax, then it’s some poor animal badly mutilated up to look like a weird fish.

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:39:47 +0000

eaenki-

I think someone stated in one of the threads earlier that years ago you could have postcards printed from film you took. Sort of a “print your own postcard” type thing.

Of course it could quite possibly be a hoax. But if it is a hoax, how did they do it? Did they use photography tricks to enlarge an image of an existing species? If so, what species? If it’s a doctored image of an existing species it should be easy to identify, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

By: eaenki

eaenki — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 08:48:11 +0000

I would say it looks like a hoax to me. This picture was made to impress. You can still find photo props in vacation places. Lets look at the fact the picture is a post card. We know this to be fact.

By: shovethenos

shovethenos — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:17:35 +0000

Still skeptical of the shark theory. The whole top of the head and tip of the nose would have had to rot off. They eyes are wrong. The mouth line is wrong. No gill slits or the gills under the slits if its been skinned. Lots of evidence missing on the fins.

If the animal had been left on its back to be skinned it seems like any blood drips would have taken a more direct route to the ground. Plus it seems like they would have been more spread out and obvious as drips, but who knows.

Purrlcat, if you go to the website you just linked and click on “reptiles” and “snakes” you’ll see that a lot of the snakes have a long mouthline like the mystery animal. They differ in a lot of other aspects, however. In any case I’m skeptical of fish or shark theories.

By: purrlcat

purrlcat — Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:23:28 +0000

Check out the website http://www.marinethemes.com for photos of Tiger sharks. In some of the photos the nose matches the mystery fish exactly. The part of the MF’s nose I thought might be ‘wrapped’ in something, could just be decomp. But the Tiger shark’s nose seems to match just right, nostrils, shape, etc.

The upward bloodline that looks like part of the mouth - could the MF have been turned on its back to be gutted? Wouldn’t that account for the track of the blood? Also, the bloody splotch just behind and below the mouth seems to be the right place for a fin to have been. I still don’t like the eye, tho. Would something as dead as this thing is still have a ‘highlight’ in its eye? Wouldn’t the eye be dull and gummy?

I am glad everyone likes my Mystery Fish photo! I had no idea it would generate this much attention. I just wanted to know WHAT THE HECK IT IS!

Maybe if someone DOES publish it in a book, someone, somewhere, will be able to identify it - either as real or a hoax.

Thanx everyone, for your interest!