"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:ufTxf.147$US3.76@trnddc04...
So it was born with its eye open? I suspect Photoshop was involved in
there somewhere.

I saw another post here on the question. Where was that? Oh, right...here
it is:

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/cyclopes.asp

Status: True

There has been similar discussion everywhere else on the Internet, including
similar information to that found on Snopes (explaining the well-documented
nature of this story).

I do find it amusing to see how many people feel that a newborn animal with
such an obvious defect must otherwise conform to every other aspect of a
normal birth. This isn't the first time I've seen the "but kittens aren't
born with their eyes open!" accusation. Well, kittens aren't usually born
with just one eye either.

All that said, the AP person who claims that faking the photo would be
"virtually impossible" doesn't have a good understanding of current
computational techniques. Rendering the photo digitally (not in Photoshop,
but using a high-quality 3D rendering engine, so that multiple angles can
easily be generated) wouldn't be out of the question, nor would matching the
supposed camera's photo file format (in fact, that part would be relatively
simple).

I doubt that's what's going on here...the whole thing seems plenty
plausible, so it's a lot of work to go to, to make a hoax that just matches
something that can happen in real life. But to say such a hoax would be
"virtually impossible" isn't correct either.

Pete