 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | ABOUT THE CURATOR | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
RUDE ROVERThe Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREEWho needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTAGo ahead and pull his finger!
Giant Jellyfish
Status: Probably fake
Peter Wenker sent along this picture of a giant jellyfish. He doesn't think it's real, and I'd agree. I know that giant jellyfish do exist, such as the ones that recently appeared off the coast of Japan, but those were about the size of a washing machine, not the size of a truck. I've never heard of a jellyfish this big. So is this picture another product of Worth1000?Update: Accipiter found a version of this same photo minus the diver, which would seem to indicate that the version with the diver has been photoshopped. (Unless it was the diver who was photoshopped out, but that seems very unlikely to me... [Wait a second, on a closer look it does seem that something might have been removed from the version without the diver. This will require more investigation.] ) The page he linked to also had some interesting jellyfish trivia, such as "The largest jellyfish ever found was a lion’s mane, with a bell 2m (7ft) across, and tentacles extending more than 35m" and "A collection of jellyfish is known as a smack."
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
It might just be my eyes after a long day at work, but it looks a tad photoshopped if you zoom into the edge of the object under the diver that overlaps the jellyfish.
Posted by Richard@Home in Uk on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 07:57 AMLooks rather fake to me...
Posted by Nettie in Perth, Western Australia on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 08:03 AMI agree, it must be fake. I think if there were jellyfish this big they would be as well known as Great White sharks and giant squids. At the very least, Steven Spielberg would have made a horror movie about them by now.
NOW PLAYING AT A THEATER NEAR YOU:
Medusa Park
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:17 PMNOW PLAYING AT A THEATER NEAR YOU:
Medusa Park
It's just a montage of two photos:
A real jelly fish, and a real diver shot on a vastly different scale.
It's just like those giant animal postcards from circa 1900 where the chicken's as big as a barn or the pig is bigger than a house.
Posted by Big Gary in Muleshoe, Texas, USA on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 02:38 PMA real jelly fish, and a real diver shot on a vastly different scale.
It's just like those giant animal postcards from circa 1900 where the chicken's as big as a barn or the pig is bigger than a house.
Hmmm. . .the largest jellyfish I've actually seen in person was a bit over 2 meters wide. So they do indeed get large. But unless that's a very, very petite diver, then that jellyfish in the picture is supposed to be at least twice as big as the one I saw. I agree that it's probably some sort of image manipulation.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:14 PMPosted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:31 PM
Well Accipiter, I guess that clinches it.
Of course we can't discount the possibility the photo you linked to had the diver photoshopped out of it.
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 03:37 PMOf course we can't discount the possibility the photo you linked to had the diver photoshopped out of it.
Do a Google search: "giant jellyfish" site:snopes.com
...and you'll get a useful thread. Consensus seems to be that "giants" up to 6 - 8 feet in diameter exist, and have possibly been increasing in numbers, but that there is little/no evidence of anything larger.
Also, the picture at the *top* of the article that Accipiter posted is said to be photoshopped as well; there's a larger version of the photo on the Snopes thread.
Also check out http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060123/060123_JELLYFISH_hmed_6p.hmedium.jpg
Posted by peter_wenker on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 01:22 PM...and you'll get a useful thread. Consensus seems to be that "giants" up to 6 - 8 feet in diameter exist, and have possibly been increasing in numbers, but that there is little/no evidence of anything larger.
Also, the picture at the *top* of the article that Accipiter posted is said to be photoshopped as well; there's a larger version of the photo on the Snopes thread.
Also check out http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060123/060123_JELLYFISH_hmed_6p.hmedium.jpg
Captain Al, I'm reluctant to say it, but I think you're right - the photo in the article had the diver 'shopped out. If you look (not even closely), there's an obvious artifact of the item (camera?) the diver is carrying.
Oddly enough, searching both Snopes and googling "giant jellyfish snopes" came up either blank (the former) or with "no longer exists" pages (the latter).
Hmmm...
Posted by karen in Reno on Sat Jun 10, 2006 at 07:36 PMOddly enough, searching both Snopes and googling "giant jellyfish snopes" came up either blank (the former) or with "no longer exists" pages (the latter).
Hmmm...
Woohoo, I've been mentioned by name on the Main Page! My life is now complete, I can die in peace without regrets.
Yes, I did notice that the picture I found was a little suspicious. But that's the only other copy of that picture I've been able to find. I was sort of hoping that somebody with a bit more computer skills than I have might be able to tell where they got their version of the picture.
Posted by Accipiter in the Northern Hemisphere, unless They have lied. on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 12:01 AMYes, I did notice that the picture I found was a little suspicious. But that's the only other copy of that picture I've been able to find. I was sort of hoping that somebody with a bit more computer skills than I have might be able to tell where they got their version of the picture.
Jellyfish never stop growing so it is possible for one to grow that big
Posted by Malfunctioned on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 04:17 AMActually Karen and Alex, I was just kidding when I said maybe the diver was photoshopped out. But now that you showed the two pictures side by side it looks like that may have been done. Like you implied, why would anyone do that. The diver added a dramatic sense of scale to the photo and removing the diver ruined it.
There is another possibility: Maybe the jellyfish was relatively small and the diver was behind it, much further away. A photoshopper could have removed the object (camera?) carried by the diver and pasted it on top of the jellyfish to make it look like the diver was in front and the jellyfish was a giant.
Posted by Captain Al in Alberta, Canada on Mon Jun 12, 2006 at 07:06 AMThere is another possibility: Maybe the jellyfish was relatively small and the diver was behind it, much further away. A photoshopper could have removed the object (camera?) carried by the diver and pasted it on top of the jellyfish to make it look like the diver was in front and the jellyfish was a giant.
"... The largest jellyfish ever found was a lion’s mane, with a bell 2m (7ft) across ..."
If this is true, the picture has to be a fake (assuming the diver is a full-grown person, not one of those little aquarium ornaments). The bell of that jellyfish has a diameter equal to at least 3 or 4 times the diver's height. If the diver is over about 2 feet tall, that would make the jellyfish much bigger than the world's record.
Posted by Big Gary in Mustang Island, Texas, USA on Tue Jun 13, 2006 at 03:16 PMIf this is true, the picture has to be a fake (assuming the diver is a full-grown person, not one of those little aquarium ornaments). The bell of that jellyfish has a diameter equal to at least 3 or 4 times the diver's height. If the diver is over about 2 feet tall, that would make the jellyfish much bigger than the world's record.
If the picture with the diver is a fake, then picture without him is clearly a dfake of a fake. you can quite clearly see part of the diver's camera in the picture where he was erased.
Posted by Shai Seger in Israel on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 03:16 AMoh my god, that is truly a huge jelly fish. I seen one once at epcot in florida but it was like half a foot wide and i thought that was huge until i saw this... That's something you see in spongebob or something, damn thats huge
Posted by Anthony in Idontknow, somewherefun on Mon Jun 26, 2006 at 08:31 AMOk, looking at both pictures... they're both fake. The one with the diver is a photoshop. Decent, but not great. The one without the diver is also a photoshop (and not a very good one, either)- to take *out* the diver.
The skinny:
The lion's mane jellyfish is the largest cnidaria (jellyfish) species, with some attaining a bell diameter of 2.5 m (8 feet) and tentacles as long as 30 m (100 feet) or more.
A cnidaria twice that size would make headlines. The largest catfish (found in Thailand) made news.. and that was just a big ol fish!
If you want a more realistic picture, which is honestly more impressive to me since it IS real, check out the Times Online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-1910322,00.html
Posted by jem in Sacramento on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 03:08 PMThe skinny:
The lion's mane jellyfish is the largest cnidaria (jellyfish) species, with some attaining a bell diameter of 2.5 m (8 feet) and tentacles as long as 30 m (100 feet) or more.
A cnidaria twice that size would make headlines. The largest catfish (found in Thailand) made news.. and that was just a big ol fish!
If you want a more realistic picture, which is honestly more impressive to me since it IS real, check out the Times Online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25689-1910322,00.html
I agree witht he person who said that both are photoshopped. You can tell if you save the pictures and zoom in on the one without the man. The tentacles are missing, part of the area to the left is cloudy. The one with the man was two pictures merged, then he was photoshopped or painted out in the other one.
Posted by Sheanean in oklahoma on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:04 AMI looked up the picture link that was posted just before my last one. That one is real. It looks like it may be around to 8 feet in width, where the fake looks like it would have to be 12 feet or more in width.
Posted by Sheanean in Oklahoma on Tue Mar 20, 2007 at 08:08 AMTake a look at page 44 of the September 2007 issue of Discover Magazine. The Jellyfish is called Nemopilema nomurai and it can weigh more than 300 pounds.
Ta ta,
Nickleye
Posted by Nickleye on Sun Aug 12, 2007 at 04:10 PMTa ta,
Nickleye
I'm currently studying biology and working in an aquatic biology lab at Northern Arizona University. From a zoological standpoint, there's nothing that says a jellyfish can't be that big. Supposedly, the largest medusa recorded are around two meters in diameter. However, many larger animals live far into the open ocean or at great depths and only ocassionally drift into areas where humans live. There are many precidents for super-sized animal only recently being discovered. In 2003, a new squid, the giant cranch squid, also known as the colossal squid was discovered (a few immature specimines were known prior to this, but no one knew how big it could be). It is larger than the giant squid. So it's not like it would be unusal to find a sea creature of this size.
That's not to say it's not a hoax, just that you really can't prove it one way or another from a biology standpoint. You'd have to look for signs of photo-manipulation.
Posted by Robert B in AZ on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 12:23 PMThat's not to say it's not a hoax, just that you really can't prove it one way or another from a biology standpoint. You'd have to look for signs of photo-manipulation.
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >