If you examine closely, you might note that the "bow wave" where the water meets the "animal's" legs translates without change as the animal "walks" across the stream. Some attempt may have been made to simulate a ripple, but it's poorly executed.

There are other clues easily spotted by experienced photoshoppers, one prominent one of which is the nearly uniform "blur" throughout the entire field of view (frequently used to obscure touchup artifacts). Nearly all video cameras approximating the apparent quality of the one we're supposed to believe do have some "autofocus" capability, and it's good enough in even the most primitive of cameras that there should have been some part of the images in focus, or very nearly so, even if other parts were "out of the depth" of the lens. Even if "locked" to a fixed focus (which can be done only with cameras that should still have taken better images), there should have been some variation in how far out of focus the parts of the image are, since the relative distances to features in the picture span a very long range.

One reporter identified the most amazing thing about the film as where on earth did he get a camera that bad?, which is a valid question, but only if you assume it's not a total hoax.

The person reported to be the one posting the video is well known for previous hoaxes, as well.

John