Wednesday, August 5, 2015

It is a shame that people have to resort to trickery and Photoshop tools to get everyone to believe that something exist when in reality it does not.

Catlocarpio siamensis

You also may like to read my Anoxic Filtration blog:

Kevin Novak Jul 31, 2015+2

Unfortunately it's just trick photography; Asian carp do not grow that big anywhere on the planet earth that is. As you notice the guy has his eyes blacked out because it is a phony picture.

Roses& Lions ®Aug 1, 2015+2


Hello +Kevin Novak! Thanks for joining the discussion. To make your comment more accurate "asian carp do not grow that big "anymore" on the planet Earth."  The truth is that reaching that size requires time, once killed the chances of other youngling reaching that size is extremely low, because of lack of legislation, illegal fishing, or simply stupidity.

Look for the National Geographic report on the 600 lbs. Goldfish. Although it is not a Goldfish (Carassius auratus) it is a carp, a cyprinid, Catlocarpio siamensis. =)

Kevin Novak Aug 1, 2015+3

Roses& lions... Largest carp caught on record was in Thailand at 265 pounds or 120 kg , so please enlighten all of us with your 600 pound carp that was in National Geographic at some fictitious time. I'm an ichthyologist and we keep track of all fish that are caught that are large, their age and grouping unfortunately I have nothing at the University that substantiate what you are saying. Largest carp on record in the Guinness Book of World Records is only 265 pounds. By the way this is classified as a world record and is on the books. The fish that is shown in the photograph is nothing as large as this Photoshop picture that we're all looking at.

The fact is there are giant catfish that are on record, were caught at about 646 pounds that hold the world record but they were over 9 feet long but then again those are catfish not carp.

Henceforth, that's why the man in the photo has his eyes blacking out.

Roses& Lions ®Aug 1, 2015+0


Dear Mr. (Dr.?) (Prof.?)+Kevin Novak,

Thank you for joining the debate. I totally respect your expertise and hope your contributions will enrich our knowledge. Said this, maybe your University should contact Professor, Ph.D. J. David Allan at the University of Michigan. They seem to have a different point of view. Looking forward to learning more about this claim. Kind regards,

Maximo Dalmau


Comments from Dr. Novak

The top excerpts are from a discussion I was having with Roses & Lions® (Maximo Dalmau) about a fish supposedly caught in Thailand called Catlocarpio siamensis in the family Cyprinidae, genus Barbus / Puntius (pronounced: Pun' –chus, meaning: boat-shaped). They are in the same family as carp and goldfish in the genus Carassius Nilson /Cyprinus carpio the common carp.

I tried to tell them (those on Google +) that the photo was a fake and the 8" 600-lb Barbus/Puntius did not exist. I even gave them some facts on a 265 pounder Cyprinus that was caught, but none as big as the photo displays. I already knew that the fish in the photo now in question was not possible for none of the Giant Barbus have been documented of that size in over 20-years or more.

QUOTE from a National Geographic article: “Though they've been known to reach 660 pounds (300 kilograms), specimens above 220 pounds (100 kilograms) have become exceptionally rare in recent years.”

What this quote is stating: That even what was considered to be a large Cyprinidae years ago of 220 lbs. is now becoming nonexistent and smaller fish of that species are now becoming the norm. That is why my comment on the exaggerated Photoshop photo of the Catlocarpio siamensis was made. QUOTE from me: “Asian carp do not grow that big anywhere on the planet earth that is.”   And the fact is they don’t, I did not insinuate that they never did at one time, just that as of present they do not.

 Maybe the Asian environment is no longer suitable for such large animals and pollution could be the limiting factor. What I don’t need is pretentious people misinterpreting what I’m saying, after all I was quite clear, and telling me that such fish still exist and a Photoshop photo on the Internet is true and factual to its accounts of present times and/or events.

Like that of the extinct Dodo Bird such large Cyprinidae are lost now forever and for what reasons no one knows for sure. It could be environmental, human intervention or for that matter; genetically it has now mutated to a smaller size animal due to inbreeding, but then again most think its human intervention.

Even in the top quote it specifically states that animals of that size of 600 lbs. are more like 220 lbs. now days and not the fish of yore (20-years ago). This also goes for the great Musky’s (muskellunge (Esox masquinongy) of the upper United States that now are no longer the great 70 lbs. plus fish of yesterday. Have they been overfished or are they now environmentally changing?

Quote: “The truth is that reaching that size requires time, once killed the chances of other youngling reaching that size is extremely low, because of lack of legislation, illegal fishing, or simply stupidity.”

The top quote is not exactly all truth but it is not an untruth still the same either, just not factually proven. Cyprinids have been known to grow 8-12" in one year from fingerling size with an abundant of four essentials elements: foodstuffs, space, clean water, and oxygen and in just a few short years (5-years) can become a giant 32-36" monster fish. They can grow as much as 4-6" a year eclipsing what the same fish can grow in a small hobbyist pond in the same amount of time.

Brian Woodcock from the UK right now is feeding his 30 Koi over a pound of food a day using his new MKII Anoxic Filter to help get some size on his Koi. This heavy feeding regime is not uncommon for people using an Anoxic Filter and I’ve seen fish go from 6" to 32" in just as short of a time as five years in hobbyist ponds. So there is no reason why fish in the wild cannot grow to monstrous sizes if given the right circumstances in which to grow.

Available foodstuff in its indigenous environment will play a very significant role in the size of any animal along with other species of fish sharing that same environment that compete for the same foodstuffs. Survival of the fittest. Large fish require large amounts of food to sustain them, take away or lessen their foodsource and you will stunt their growth rate, too. The studies as of yet are inconclusive in their findings as to why such animals are shrinking and/or not growing as large as they should be and more environmental impact studies need to be conducted.

 We see this when carp overpopulate the waterways they don’t belong in and the indigenous species of fish soon suffer to the point of smaller growth, smaller numbers of indigenous populations or worse yet, extinction of the indigenous species altogether. I’ve commented about this on my blog:  3,000 Reasons Not to Dump Unwanted Goldfish into a Lake by Lottie Richard on April 7, 2015.

 However, the bottom line is that such large food fish are now gone from countries like Thailand, Laos and Cambodia and that’s that.

I’m not here to debate why these animals are getting smaller in size than what was caught and/or known twenty plus years ago, but when people use deception to get the sympathy of others to join their environmental causes, then we all suffer from their deceptive ways in the long run. One example is that dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane was said to be an unsafe non-environmentally friendly pesticide and was banned from the U.S. and other countries from using it. Nevertheless, we now know that DDT as its known wasn’t as bad as scientist claimed it to be and its use clearly outweighed the disadvantages it had. So now 50,000 people a year die of Malaria when DDT was the pesticide of choice to control the mosquitoes that transported the infectious disease. Now we have the big corporation’s telling us that Round-Up pesticide is better and safer than DDT was, but they are the ones doing all the testing on their own products. Can we trust them?

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) once said: It is better to keep ones mouth shut, than to open it a relive all doubt.

When I saw the photo I thought to myself: “I’ve seen that fish before but where?” Then I went through my archives of giant fish and found the original photo under Big Fish or record-breaking fish caught in Thailand. Low and behold the two photos are not only similar but they are of the same fish. Only the one Roses & Lions® displays is a fake taken from the photo called Big Fish.  Of course Roses & Lions® didn’t mentioned that the photo is a complete fabricated one and they now are trying to tell an Ichthyologist they are right and the expert is wrong. Really!!!

 So I will stick to my guns and say once again that Catlocarpio siamensis like the one in their displayed photo do not exist at that size, at least on the planet earth.  Maybe I should give Roses & Lions® the benefit of the doubt and they didn’t really know that the photo was a fabricated one so I now will explain why it is.

Photo one: is of the original Catlocarpio siamensis @ 48" long 

photo two: is of the same fish but Photoshoped in and looks to be @ 8" long.

Photo one is of the original Catlocarpio siamensis @ 48" long and photo two is of the same fish but Photoshoped in and looks to be @ 8" long.

1)  The eye is in the exact downward location in both photos.
2)  The mouth of the fish is open in both photos and this could not be so unless it was held open.
3)  The barbell is in the exact location in both photos.
4)  The dark markings match and are the exact same pattern.
5)  The dorsal fin lays the same way in both photos and has the same shadows on them.
6)  Caudal fin has a black small Photoshop smug mark from Fill Tool that was to cover up the fingers in the original photo.
7)  Black spot matches exactly on both fish.
8)  Black spot matches exactly on both fish.
9)  Another marking on the original photo fish that the bigger fish has on the same exact scales too.
10) The same four outlined scales on both fish…is this a coincidence or what?
11) The pectoral and pelvic or ventral fins are exactly in the same position.
12) The blue is smudged from Fill Tool once again, to cover up something, once again sloppy Photoshop techniques.
13) The operculum has the same marking and in the same spot on both fish.
14) Smudged Photoshop marks on fish to hide fingers on original picture by Fill Tool.
15) More Photoshop smudges from Fill Tool to cover up fingers in original photo.

It is a shame that people have to resort to trickery and Photoshop tools to get everyone to believe that something exist when in reality it does not. As an Ichthyologist I keep tracked of what animals fill in the holes in our lives and those that do not.



No comments: