Human head in a shark tank

I think this is new today, from a very reputable source called the Sun. /sarcasm

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1804838.ece

Reflection? Shopped?

I vote shopped. The area around the face seems to be darker and a little smudgey. The blueness of the whole picture seems a little too intense and hints that it a tint added to the picture so as to disguise the shopped in head.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Jelly Bean Queen

I vote shopped. The area around the face seems to be darker and a little smudgey. The blueness of the whole picture seems a little too intense and hints that it a tint added to the picture so as to disguise the shopped in head.

I agree, but the blueness is due to lighting effects.

[ganzfeld]

I think its just a reflection and the whole photos color's a bit off.

[Hans Off]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I think its just a reflection and the whole photos color's a bit off.

Seconded, but the colour cast is fine for a tank of water being lit from above...

[Don Enrico]

Since the picture is from an aquarium, it could be a prank by the person/s who sculpted the artificial reef.

On the other hand, the "Surfer shares wave with shark" picture is advertised as a "related story", so the relation could be that they are both faked.

Don Enrico

[Artemis]

Although Emma’s dad Alan, 48, was stood next to her in the glass tunnel, she insists he looks nothing like the man in the photo.

Was stood? Are they in the habit of not proofreading at the Sun?

[mouse goddess]

I don't know if I can explain this right, but the head seems to have a bit too much tone to be disembodied. I'd expect the muscles to be more slack.

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Was stood? Are they in the habit of not proofreading at the Sun?

I'm failing to see the problem, so you'll have to explain this to me.

Couldn't this just be an optical illusion with the rocks from a specific point?

[Chloe]

Is there anyone who isn't in the tank for Obama?????

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

Couldn't this just be an optical illusion with the rocks from a specific point?

I assumed that to start with, but actually looking at the picture I don't think so - look at the ear, for example. It's too detailed for a coincidental alignment of rocks.

And if there was a "real" head of some sort in there as a joke, another possibility mentioned, then the people at the aquarium would have known about it when asked.

Artemis, in the UK "was stood" is a less formal, but apparently still acceptable to The Sun's editors, variant of "was standing". I imagine it's written that way to help Sun readers understand it more easily, although it was stood out for me too.

Usually I hate to say "photoshop" but that does seem a distinct possibility. But if the story's correct and no deception is involved, then I'd have to go with a reflection. A tube like that probably reflects from odd angles that you wouldn't expect so there could easily have been another un-noticed person there to be reflected.

[Artemis]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

I'm failing to see the problem, so you'll have to explain this to me.

"Was stood"? Like he was propped up? If he was standing next to her, wouldn't it make more sense to just say, "Although he was standing" or "although he stood"?

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by Chloe

Is there anyone who isn't in the tank for Obama?????

You beat me to it!

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Artemis

"Was stood"? Like he was propped up? If he was standing next to her, wouldn't it make more sense to just say, "Although he was standing" or "although he stood"?

As Richard said, in British English stood and standing are accepted synonyms. I'm probably so used to it that it doesn't sound odd to me.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Boffins at the aquarium admit they are baffled by the appearance of the man’s face, which appears to be gawping up at a shark

Boffins? Now I can imagine The Sun referring to any kind of scientist as a boffin, but the management and night watchman of an aquarium?

[Eddylizard]

My uneducated ramblings on the possibilities. It could be:

A photoshopped image. I'm not that au fait enough to tell shopped from unshopped images. My guess, given the visitor's surname is that The Sun made the whole thing up. Now I'm not suggesting that one of our finest newspapers and bastions of journalistic integrity would do such a thing; merely suggesting that The Sun isn't one of our finest newspapers and bastions of journalistic integrity.

A reflection. However it seems that the owner of said head would have to have been lying on the ground in the observation tunnel at a very strange angle, such that Emma Place (great name for an aquarium visitor (maybe the giveaway in the hoax) and her father could not have failed to notice him.

It is a real severed human head, that somehow found its way into the pool. Somehow probably being a prank. However, sharks as I understand it can detect and home in on very small traces of blood in water, and make short work of the flesh. Which could have explained why the aquarium staff found nothing, but equally, it would have been eaten long before the visitors got there. The head also looks to me more like a waxwork. So...

A waxwork or mannequin head, placed there as a prank by someone working there. Maybe it was fished out afterwards.

As above, but organised by the aquarium's management, in order to draw publicity to the attraction. Perhaps with the help of Ms. Place.

It was a real ghost. Yeah, right, okay, whatever you say, beard.

Or maybe my theories are Missplaced?

ETA: It is quite convenient that the photo is cropped just below the chin.

I don't know how good cameras on cellphones are, but given the light level I'd have thought one would have to be pretty good to capture the image in the article using one.

ETA2: What about the other small fish in the pond. Wouldn't they have long since become Hors d'Ouevre for the shark?

[plannedchaos]

I think it looks like Jon Stewart.

[Artemis]

Fair enough--not used to Britishisms myself!

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Artemis

Fair enough--not used to Britishisms myself!

Well, it is "non-standard". I was surprised to see it in The Sun too; most papers would have used "was standing".

[Miss Cellaneous]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

ETA2: What about the other small fish in the pond. Wouldn't they have long since become Hors d'Ouevre for the shark?

I've been to several aquariums that have tanks with mixed sharks and smaller fish. A year or so ago I listened in on a program with one of the local Aquarium's employees in SCUBA gear answering questions from inside the huge shipwreck tank, and that question came up.

The explanation she gave for why the sharks didn't eat the other fish in with them was that the employees who take care of the tank keep the sharks and fish in the tank very well fed, so that the sharks are too full and contented to go after their tank-mates. (And the divers, presumably.) I imagine accidents might happen where the sharks go after the other fish, but that wasn't asked and I didn't think about it at the time.