Who knows if this story is real or if it is just a hoax? If it?s a hoax, at least 1 person knows ? the narrator. If it isn?t a hoax, you should have seen it on CNN or another major world news network by now. You can see the windows media player version of the video at
https://www.unexplainable.net/1/tsu.wmv .
The 65 second video clip opens with a young Indian woman holding a microphone and walking on an open sandy beach speaking apparent Indian with a voice-over narrator translating everything spoken to English. The reporter?s name is displayed along with an official looking logo as the reporter walks on to the beach telling of the areas recovery from the 2004 tsunami in the Tamil Hadu region of Indian. So far so good, except that we are 18 seconds (over 25%) into the entire clip and have not yet seen any glimpse of a giant sea creature.
At this point, the video shows a crude map of the southern tip of India with two cities marked by colored dots. Here is where the problems begin. The two cities are named Chenai and Mahabalipuram. First, Chenai is misspelled but is in the correct position to be the city of Chennai. Forgiving a professional news service this oversight, we then notice that Mahabalipuram, a 7th century port city of South India, is known today as Mamallapuram. I scoured the internet looking for any map that used the ancient city name and could find none except as a reference on tourism brochures. This seems like too big of an error to be an oversight.
(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabalipuram).
At 22 seconds the clip switches to a rock formation with waves splashing and 1.5 seconds later switches to the reporter extending the microphone to a lady on the beach who proceeds to tell of hearing legends of giant creatures as a child. A point to make here is that the rock has hieroglyphs or other etchings that appear as the picture contrast balances just before the video switches away from this scene to a helicopter in the air. Now at 36 seconds (55%) through the clip, we still haven?t seen the remains of anything except the bird droppings on the beach.
As the reporter tells of a fossilized formation that extends 150 feet into the ocean, suddenly at 39 seconds we catch an aerial view of the purported structures exposed by the tsunami. At first glance, it is almost credible. Unfortunately, the view only lasts for about 4 ? seconds. Just enough time to show some interesting glitches or expose some bad graphic overlays.
If you watch closely as the waves roll into shore, you will notice some possible problems with the images. There are two waves in particular to watch for. First, there is the whitecap rolling in from the left side of the frame toward the formation that resembles a human rib cage. Notice as it ripples into the beach at the 42 second mark, a blurry digital smudging occurs immediately next to the rock formation that is just offshore. Secondly, notice the dark wave rolling in toward that same rock formation. The clip conveniently leaves this scene just before the wave would strike the rock formation and thereby confirm its physical presence in the scene. I point this out because during the entire 4.5 second exposure of the formations, the rock just offshore shows only a discoloration of the water all of the way around it. No waves ? just white caps!
Now at just less than 44.5 seconds, the view is gone. The center piece of this video was only visible for a mere 7% of the length of the clip about it. That is either incredibly BAD reporting or incredibly worse editing or something else is wrong.
At 54 seconds a small formation, roughly estimated to be 2 cubits (or 36 inches) wide based its proportion to the human arm brushing sand from beneath the rock, appears as the reporter claims that these finds will change archeologist?s understanding of biology. Except for the fact that this rock bears absolutely NO resemblance to any bone in the human body AND THAT IT ALSO HAS HIEROGLYPHICS ON IT AND its position relative to the aerial view before isn?t stated or made visual ? OK we?ll overlook this glitch too?
Finally, just before the reporter signs off, the clip shows a rock just off shore, presumably intended to be the same formation seen from the aerial view. However, the formation is not the same shape or size (as seen by the birds sitting atop it), doesn?t have the discolored water about it and is causing waves to splash from the seaboard side only ? completely unlike the wave and water action seen in the aerial view.
The clip ends with the reporter signing off with a name other than what is displayed on the banner! She is set against a background of rock formations roughly configured to imitate the aerial view from the surface perspective. The smudging and poor embedding of these images is very obvious if you watch the transition from the previous frames into the end and just look at the bases of the ?formations? in the final frame ? fuzzy and smudged.
While others may accept what this video shows as reasonable or even fact, I see too many inconsistencies and apparent makeovers of the video. For those who do believe it though, I have some swampland in Florida that is primed for development I?ll sell you! Oh yeah, and I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale again!
Does it seem a little too coincidental that only a short time ago there were reports of a giant human skeleton being recovered in the Arabian Desert? (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_giant_skeleton.htm)
But if you want to see what the tsunami really dredged up, take a look at these links.