Big Bear

Cold Smoke · March 11, 2005, 04:37:44 AM

Any of you hunters ever see this bear?? Whoa!!!!

Try smokin one of these roasts!!!

//[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v719/c0ldsm0ke/new-bear3.jpg[/IMG]

Imagine the skid marks in the bottom of this man's drawers....[:0]

Cold Smoke

jaeger · March 11, 2005, 05:13:38 AM

Possibly a little photo shop added.......???

Doug

Oldman · March 11, 2005, 09:46:10 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Possibly a little photo shop added.......???<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I don't think so. I took the second picture of him hold up the paw and enlarged it to 2000% of normal viewing. If this is a fake the author spent many many hours creating a hoax.

In the first picture below you will see the area I enlarged. In the second picture you will then the enlarged area. Notice the blood on bear in relationship to the hand. There is a clear relationship (line) between the blood on the hair and where it meets the man's hand. To add that to this photo would taken hours and hours if not days in order for it to blend all of that layering in. Also I do not see any de-pixelation which is use to blend two pictures together. I took it up to 16,000% of normal viewing and if they had used a de-pixelation method to blend I would have seen it by then.

I might be wrong about this. There might be programs out there that will allow you to do this without showing the feathering of de-pixelation. Its just I have never seen one. Or I just missed seeing the blending.

To explain what I mean by the feathering of de-pixelation look at these two photos. The first on is a white box that I de-pixeled by one pixel only. It is on top of a black box. Note in the second picture (16,000 % of normal viewing) the relationship (line) between the two boxes. See how the white slowly fades--evenly fades into the black. This does not happen in a real photo.

Granted in this example it is easy to see that the first picture has been de-pixeled. That is do to the contrast of white and black. In a photo of simmler colors is impossible to see it at normal viewing. Even real hard at 5-8,000% of normal viewing.

Olds

http://rminor.com

Sesh · March 11, 2005, 06:34:36 PM

A buddy sent me that a couple months ago. I tried to find the story that went with it in my email but I must have deleted it. From my addled memory, the guy pictured was supposedly a warden. Can't remember any other details. I spent the summer of '89 working for the Coast Guard on Kodiak island and I can attest to the huge size of Kodiak Browns but this story was supposedly of a grizzly on the mainland.

gotbbq · March 20, 2005, 12:31:21 PM

It looks like the IRS agent at my last audit. Things went well, i'm living in the BS box. [^][^][^]

gotbbq

ChefBill · March 20, 2005, 02:55:47 PM

I've seen that on a couple of hunting & Shooting forums I belong to and it is supposed to be a "doctored" photo. I'm like Raye, the guy did a good job of it, if it is. Have seen it discussed on a bunch of forums and actually saw the documentation that admitted the fake. Bill

If you can eat it, you can smoke it.

Habanero Smoker · March 20, 2005, 03:09:15 PM

I meant to post this some time ago. Urban Legends at About.com proved this was a hoax http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl-grizzlybear.htm

Chez Bubba · March 20, 2005, 06:14:09 PM

My understading is that the bear itself and the shooter is real, it's just the "story" explaining the situation that is faked. Real pictures, exaggerated text.

Although I can't personally attest to the size of that thing, it seems perfectly logical to me. Kummok should weigh in on this.

Kirk

http://www.chezbubba.com
Ya think next time I check into a hotel & they ask "Smoking or Non?" they would mind?

Habanero Smoker · March 20, 2005, 08:18:40 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Chez Bubba
 My understading is that the bear itself and the shooter is real, it's just the "story" explaining the situation that is faked. Real pictures, exaggerated text.

Although I can't personally attest to the size of that thing, it seems perfectly logical to me. Kummok should weigh in on this.

Kirk

http://www.chezbubba.com
Ya think next time I check into a hotel & they ask "Smoking or Non?" they would mind?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

If you read the entire article, Urban Legand is stating that the photo is authentic. The hoax is the size the reported bear was, who shot it, and how.

Except from Urban Legend:
In real life, the big grizzly in the first two photographs measured 10' 6" from nose to tail and weighed an estimated 1,000 to 1,200 pounds — unusually large for the vicinity in which it was found, says the USDA Forest Service, but not quite a world record, nor even a record for Alaska. It was killed on October 14, 2001 by U.S. Air Force Airman Theodore Winnen on Hinchinbrook Island, Prince William Sound. The photos were taken by his hunting partner, Staff Sgt. James Urban. Both were stationed at Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks at the time.

Oldman · March 21, 2005, 05:36:51 AM

I guess as the years have gone by I have gotten weak. When I was a kid I hunted because we need the food.

I wonder what this guy did with all of that bear meat. I wonder how he got it out of the woods.

I best stop here.

Olds

http://rminor.com