Giant Bear: Comments
(most recent posts first)
JD, it doesnt matter if the whole country hunts and kills animals. It still is wrong. You are killing for sport. Killing for food is alright, we need it to survive, but do we need to kill animals for sport? No, and when you kill and just hang the head on the wall, that is wrong. You are taking the life of an animal. It might be an animal, but animals can feel pain. If you dont believe that, i think you said, "research before you comment."
Friday, October 31, 2003 at 09:21:34
I was born & raised in Alaska & know that bears CAN get that huge,(around 1600 lbs) although, I couldn't tell you if that one is as big as they say..but I also saw the other photos that were originally with that picture, of the guy holding one of the bears' paws, & that in itself may prove the authenticity of the actual size of that bear, granted that the paw photo is real...? None the less, it makes for a good story! ..."}
Aleah Crockett York
Thursday, October 30, 2003 at 15:22:42
Dan, from Halifax, is correct - I have seen this type of photography hundreds of times - in outdoors magazines, and just photos of friends animals. Alaskan Browns do get quite large, though I would have to say that 1850 pounds is pushing it a bit. As an avid bear hunter, I would guess the bear at closer to 1100 - 1200 lbs. And a note the the girl who thinks that killing bears in the wild is wrong - research before you comment - hunting is, and I hope continues to be, a very popular and nurturing experience.
JD, Bozeman, MT
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 17:09:16
According to Truthorfiction.com here are the real facts: The Truth: The facts are a little different from the eRumor, but the pictures do record the results of a true hunt and are real. The original pictures lacked the label linking them with hunting-pictures.com, but that is where the pictures reside. They were posted by a hunter who used the nickname Dalliwacker, on www.assaultweb.net, but who is, according to published articles, Jim Urban. He says that the bear was actually ten feet high and weighed between 1,000 and 1,200 pounds. He says the bear did not stand up then drop down and charge. It showed no aggression at all. He also says the bear was not shot on Hitchenbrook Island but, like all good hunters, he won't be specific about where he got it
Friday, October 24, 2003 at 13:39:56
Weights of bears over 1500 lbs (up to 1800 lbs) are a matter of record. But, this one seems to ask the question of what type of bear it is. To me (and I'm probably wrong), it looks like a Black Bear which are very well below the 1000lb mark.
Friday, October 24, 2003 at 06:39:15
I got extremely confused with all these "authentic" opinions. Personally I think it looks like a trick, but there are definitely big bears out there. 1200 lb is only 4x the size of a regular bear right? *this is sarcasm!*
Saturday, September 20, 2003 at 11:52:41
He's not a park ranger, the bear didn't weigh 1850 lbs, the shooting was perfectly legal, and though I can't speak as to the authenticity of that particular photo, it was a pretty big bear (estimated at between 1000-1200 lbs). There's a news story on the hunter/bear from the Anchorage Daily News, containing another picture of the hunter posed holding the bears gigantic paw up, which can be found at http://www.adn.com/outdoors/v-akcom/story/739717p-787512c.html The story finishes on what I find to be a very funny note: "Guide Want said, 'I can guarantee you, in a year or two, someone will tell him (Winnen) how big the bear was and it will be up to 1,800 pounds. And when he tries to correct them, they will call him a liar.'"
Tuesday, August 12, 2003 at 00:31:09
Dear Museum,My name is Kelsey and i think that you shouldn't put the picture of the enormous bear in the book.The hunter had NO right to shoot him i think he should get a fine for shooting such a big bear in the wild. thanks
Wednesday, May 07, 2003 at 17:01:26
THE BEAR THAT WAS ALLEDGEDLY SHOT BY THE FOREST RANGER ?:
HILLIARD, OH USA - Monday, March 17, 2003 at 13:29:41 (PST)
Hi, I remember when the photo of the Giant bear went around a year or so ago. It was said at that time that the photo was a fake. The bear and the man are two different photos and the man was superimposed behind the bear in a smaller size to make the bear look that much bigger. I have searched the web for the original site but I cant find it now. What do you know about this? Thanks for your time.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 at 17:30:49
Your "bear" picture may not be altered, but the bear isn't that big. It's a simple photography trick called forced perspective. It's used by every hunting magizine on the planet. All you do is position your hunter about 5-10 feet behind the animal and take the picture from an angle that doesn't show the distance. Now how is this more "real" than one someone faked in photshop?
Halifax, Canada - Monday, December 09, 2002 at 09:56:30 (PST)
I've received a lot of skeptical comments about the reality of that bear photo. The bear's head does lie closer to the camera than the hunter, thus making the bear look bigger. But the fact remains that this was a very big bear, which is why I labelled it as a true picture.
Thursday, December 05, 2002
Maybe the photo of the hunter and the bear wasn't digitally manipulated, but I still think "trickery" in the form of misleading perspective was used -- as if the photo was shot with a wide-angle lens, with the hunter sitting at the back end of the bear. (It would be easier to tell for sure if we could actually see the back end of the bear!) I'm interested to hear whether you've considered that idea. Thanks for the quiz, which I read about in the New York Times. I'm surprised how many of the photos I hadn't seen before!
Thursday, December 05, 2002 at 12:54:20
For that photo test you got one wrong, the bear hunt photo was doctored to make the bear look huge. The guy in the photo called an Alaskan radio talk show to say it was a fake. To confirm that you can contact them: Bob & Mark, KBFX 100.5, 800 E. Dimond Blvd, suite 3-370, Anchorage, AK 99515
Monday, November 25, 2002 at 12:37:49
That first picture is for real for sure. That guy is a the Uncle of a girl I go to school with, and he's not a hunter he's a park ranger, and that's the biggest bear ever shot, it's 1850 lbs. >=)
Winnipeg, Canada - Thursday, November 21, 2002 at 12:12:53 (PST)
I say this bear's head, face and even its expresssion is very suspicious, esp 'round the eyes, as if someone enlarged the head by XY% and then superimposed it back into the picture???
Friday, November 8, 2002 7:57 AM