PlanetCatfish.com

http://environment.nationalgeographic.c ... 00x450.jpg

Nat Geo did this little thing on scary freshwater animals, and they have this picture of a catfish. I can't say I know what this one is. Anyone?

Well it's a model. A model of what however ...

it's a fake

it's in the text, but you have to find it; it says "divers are working with a model of a catfish

it's obviously made by some idiots that have no clue what a true catfish looks like
what they did is take a shark-like thing, add Perciform lips like a grouper has and add whiskers


they even added some "crocodile ridges" on it

probably made by the same crowd that likes those "OOOOOh AAAAAh SCARY!!!" monsterfish programs

there's no such catfish.

Ugh, I've been in science too long. A "model" species means something completely different to me.

I think the size of the eyes on that thing, gives the game away

I'd say someone had a spare cast left over from a sturgeon modelling commission and decided to get creative.

not even a sturgeon has those puppy dog eyes
especially not on the top of the head.

no, these guys have the "shark fetish", which is quite common on the mockumentary channels.

if it's not "sharky" it's not mediapathic

I'd say they took a model of a baby Dogfish, upscaled it and added lips and whiskers

The base looks very much like a pike (Esox lucius) to me - even down to the colouration. Disregarding the eye, of course!

I'm more curious as to what the divers were trying to do with the model. Catch the Storsjöodjuret?

If you look at the size of the divers fingers on the top of the model you will get a better perspective as to the size of the model.

Ian

Silurus wrote:I'm more curious as to what the divers were trying to do with the model. Catch the Storsjöodjuret?

Heh, I was wondering about that too! Maybe it is an attempt to make a model of the monster itself?

Here is another picture of it: http://myloupe.com/home/info-price-rm.p ... _id=323417

I'm trying to find some more information about it online - I can't imagine someone making a model like that and not posting something about it on the internet!

I had no idea what Storsjöodjuret was, i.e., Sweden has its own version of Loch Ness monster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storsj%C3%B6odjuret

Nat Geo has an international reputation for excellence in reporting and photography. Why tarnish it by putting up a doctored photo? Did they know it was a fake and knowingly publish it?
-Shane

Shane, it's party true....

they had an excellent reputation for excellence in reporting and photography

they still produce truly brilliant photo's in their magazine and most of their articles are top notch

unfortunately the last few years their TV shows are half worth looking at and the other half is definitely aimed at the "3 braincells to rub together trailer crowd"

for example all those religious propaganda shows where they take stories out of the bible and add some pseudo science and try to propagandize religious views off as archeological science
very bad and very sad. religion and science should not mix.
maybe one of their biggest sponsor is now a televangelist or they got a lot of cash coming in from the right wing fundies, I don't know.


and there's a growing number of programs on NGC straight in the "oooh! aaaah! monsters!" vein.
most of the time you're staring into someone's nostrils filled with nosehair, and get screamed in your face in 2 syllable words about how scary and freaky every animal is, animals get groped and wrestled aaaaand it's the next commercial.

frankly I stopped watching things like that
it's mind pollution. garbage. not informative.

I showed my mom this slideshow, and for perhaps the first time ever, she looked at the catfish picture, eyes narrowed, and asked if that was a fake photo. Seeing as she usually thinks everything online is real, this states the simple crappy quality of that image.

Nat Geo, you couldn't put one over on a lady who is positive that 1000words.com has non-altered pictures.

and if you look closly behind the gills you'll see extra fins my question would be what the butt munches happend to nat geo and they're kinda giving catfish a bad name because people are gona look at this and say "oh all catfish are ugly and creepy because nat geo says so" and us were looking at this saying that not evan a real freaking catfish. and then i realize nat geo is taking advantage of its online viewers and since there off making up stuff about fish and agian they got us sitting here looking at this like what the fudge buckets. and people i've seen alot of people do alot of dumb stuff before but ths really ticks me off

CatfishPownage63...Putting on my moderater hat here....the amount of swearing in that post, even though slightly blanked out is excessive, you could have said what you wanted without this, I suggest you take the time to clean up that post please.

We like that you are young and excited about catfish please continue to participate in the forum...but excessive bad language is not tolerated or wanted here and will lead to warnings and an eventual ban if continued.


Birger

And again, is a 'wall' of letters.

Ok i'am sorry I will clean it up

Omg, tell me I must have read the clean version. Or does fudge buckets mean something different in other parts of the world?

no i just made it up because i have to say fudge instead of the f word and i added buckets and its fun to say so when you say oh fudge buckets you laugh and on top of that you read the clean version

Are you afraid of animals? If no, then I have some of them who will make you feel scarier.
ranker.com

sidguppy wrote:... religion and science should not mix.

Ideally, both should be identical, since science is just mankind trying to explain all the works of God; mankind is imperfect, God isn't. Man tries to explain eternal truths, but God is the ultimate and only source of truth. Mankind is imperfect, so it ofttimes misinterprets God's truths.

Science is wonderful, but we must all remember: it is imperfect knowledge.