Print

Email this story

Add a comment

*Note: MonsterPig.com has continually changed since its inception.These changes have become more drastic since StinkyJournalism's investigation began in late May. Most notably all the photos of Monster Pig have been removed except for one that has clearly been photoshopped. Therefore all MonsterPig.com links are referenced from our archive.

What's going on here in these six dramatic photographs posted to the MonsterPig.com website? Stinky Journalism sought the help of retired NYU physicist, Richard Brandt, as press reports cited no scientific opinions about the photos, which locals and hunters alike found suspicious. Stinky Journalism exclusively puts the photos to the test, with resident trick photography expert, and Art Science Research Laboratory director, Rhonda Roland Shearer's in-depth report.

Figure 2. Awe-inspiring Photograph of Boy Hunter and his Kill. Here lies the monster pig and his slayer, Jamison Stone, 11 years old. (Click image to enlarge)

The Associated Press News Wire, followed by FOX News, reported that a "monster pig" had been shot by an eleven-year-old boy in rural Alabama. A dramatic photo (see Figure 2) accompanied the story. It showed the young hunter, Jamison Stone, a hardy 5 feet 5 inches, leaning on the back of the stupendous and dead 1,051 pound, 9 foot 4 inch, feral pig. This striking photo, which ran on the front page of the Saturday May 26th, New York Post, created an international news stir.

One problem. Evidence collected by Stinky Journalism indicates that the photos, which ran on televisions and newspapers throughout the world, are not the straightforward snapshots they seem--but fakes.

"Monster Pig... Bigger than Hogzilla"

Figure 3. National Geographic exhumed the last wannabe, "Hogzilla"

Giant feral pigs have long been the stuff of legendary pursuits. Encounters with mythic creatures often result in suspicious and iconic photographs: think Bigfoot, think Loch Ness, think the New Jersey Devil. One commonality among such expeditions is that they almost invariably lack independent verification and clear physical evidence. Famously, the last wannabe "hogzilla" flamed out after a 2005 National Geographic investigation. Hyped at 1,000 pounds and 12 feet long, the beast was exhumed by National Geographic researchers (see Figure 3) who reckoned the hog weighed in at 800 pounds and measured 8 feet in length. "It's a big pig, but no 'hogzilla,'" said Jamison Stone's father, Mike Stone, about their own giant  pig.

Figure 4. Monster Pig versus Hogzilla: Jamison Stone's web site www.MonsterPig.com, was set up by his father, Mike Stone soon after the May 3rd shooting. The Site claims Jamison's monster pig is "BIGGER than Hogzilla" of National Geographic fame.

Figure 5. Jamison has a part in the forthcoming "Hozilla Movie" now in casting.

Jamison Stone's web site, www.MonsterPig.com, was set up by his father, auctioneer Mike Stone, soon after the May 3rd shooting. The site claims that his prey is "BIGGER than Hogzilla" of National Geographic fame (see Figure 4). While hats and T-shirts are in production, you can buy the "giant hog felled by boy" image--poster-size--from Stone's website. They have sold ten, according to Stone. Jamison's newfound notoriety for bagging a bigg'n, according to his website, has even led to an invitation to appear in a movie production of a feature called The Legend of Hogzilla, a harrowing tale of a man who stalks the fearsome swine that murdered his wife (see Figure 5). (But can it be a mere coincidence that the day after the AP wire story ran the movie's casting call was announced in the press, stating that Jamison had bagged the beast and a movie part?)

During one of several conversations with Mike Stone, he said that he and Jamison would even be flying to New York City to appear on the Today Show on Tuesday, May 29th. (More on that later.) He also complained that calls and emails had been pouring in, non-stop, from around the world. "Some [have been] positive. Some negative," Stone said.

The reason for the international stir was simple: the hairy sucker depicted in the photograph looked huge. To my questions about world record status, Stone's father told me no world records were at stake because none exist for feral hogs. "It's not a record of anything," he said. "Everyone thought there was some sort of record when they call."  And it's true that the MonsterPig.com web site only makes a carefully worded and modest claim: "The feral hog is definitely one of the biggest, if not the biggest ever taken by an 11 year old." The only documented world record I could find was for a colossal domestic swine, Big Bill, whose bulk at 9 feet and 2,552 pounds dwarfs the Jamison's hog which allegedly measured 9 feet 4 inches and weighed in at 1,050 pounds. So, without a record on the line, the press hoopla revolved around a single dramatic image of a small boy beside the giant beast he'd felled in the wilds of rural Alabama.

But size is relative.

At first glance, the Stone photo seems off-the-cuff and candid. However, a closer examination of a larger version of the AP photo published on Stone's website, offers clues to how the pig's dimensions were exaggerated by careful positioning of the photograph's subject, victorious young hunter, Jamison, in relation to the pig and the photographer.

Figure 6. (Detail of Figure 2): A close up view and analysis of Jamison's arm "resting" directly on top of the beast's spine reveals; a.) the boy's arm is freakishly tiny, b.) the pig's individual hairs are super-sized, or, c.) more reasonably, Jamison is farther away than we assume as evoked by the illusionary juxtaposition. Retired NYU Physicist, Dr Richard Brandt's calculations show that the boy is standing about 7 feet back from the center of the hog. This scientific measurement directly contradicts the Stone family's claim that Jamison was "close enough to touch the hog."

The larger photo (see Figure 6) shows Jamison Stone with his arms positioned, seemingly, atop the pig's spine. This shot, however, has all the hallmarks of a photo trick seen often in travel photographs. (Think of ones you've seen taken in Egypt where a giant pyramid is "magically" held in the palm of the hand.)

Look at the illusions below: the "Kissing the Sphinx" illusion Egyptian tour guides encourage or the Man holding the Taj-Mahal  (see Figures 7 and 8).

Figure 7. " She's in the foreground, enlarged by perspective, the spinx is in he background" explains MoIlusions.com	Figure 8. "Relative Size illusions trick the eye into believing objects are smaller or greater than their original size," according to MoIllusions.com (images courtesy www.moillusions.com)

MoIllusions categorizes this particular photo trick under "Relative Size Illusions" and explains that the eye is tricked "into believing objects are smaller or greater than their original size." In the case of the Stone photos, the eye sees a smaller boy and the brain is tricked into believing the pig is much bigger than it is. (For more examples see Figures 9 and 10 below.)

Figure 9. This Moillusions.com image aligns People in the background. They are meant to appear miniature in size but are merely far away from the person in the foreground pointing down.	Figure 10. No, people are not jumping into a big hat. The jumping figures are just far away. The camera is angled down and uses the sharp horizon line to trick the brain into seeing miniature people, or alternatively, a very large hat.

Overwhelming evidence, however, indicates that the Stone picture is a relative size illusion devised with the goal of making the pig seem bigger than it actually was.

(I should preface what follows by saying that I am an art historian whose work for the last 10 years has centered on the 20^th century artist and Dada prankster, Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968). Duchamp himself employed trick photography. He depicted himself as a ghostly apparition is several studio photographs. In one famous image, Duchamp carefully positioned his head behind a table. When lowering it to exactly the table's height, the resulting photo looked as if his head were decapitated and resting on the table's surface. It's no overstatement to say photo trickery has been employed since the advent of the camera.

I must also mention here that Jamison's father, Mike Stone, claims that the positioning in all six extant photographs was unplanned, accidental, coincidental. "These are authentic pictures," said Stone. "They have not been altered." Later he told me "No one staged any one...One camera was lost at the scene. Someone ran over it, or it fell off the back of a pick up truck as we were leaving." The other photos he threw out because "they weren't flattering." Stone, however, did mention a few additional photos of the pig "being dragged out by a backhoe."

1. Two photos, Figure 11 and Figure 12 , show the size of Jamison's head changing size even though his relative position is supposedly the same.

On a remote page of the www.MonsterPig.com web site( Web site pagesremoved as in early June. This is archived page.)is another, unpublished photo (see Figure 11). The picture was taken in the same spot as the poster version and strangely depicts a larger Jamison. This small hiccup can be interpreted in one of two ways: Jamison's head expanded like a balloon in the time between the two photos; or he was, in fact, in different positions in each of the pictures. You decide.

Figure 11. Is Jamison's head shrinking and expanding? No, in Figure 11 he is further away from the pig in comparison to Figure 12, another version of Figure 2, the AP Photograph. Figure 11 is found on remote page of the MonsterPig.com web site.

Figure 12. ( another version of Figure 2) is the money shot. It's dramatic character has resulted in propagation to media outlets throughout the world.

In both photos we are meant to believe that he is right next to the beast. However, the discrepancy in the size of Jamison's head is a telltale sign that there's something funny going on. It's easily explained if we know that a simple illusion is being employed. His head appears much bigger in Figure 11 because he is, in reality, much closer to the pig.

In all photos, our senses are deprived of a third dimension. A photo's depth is achieved through the brain's ability to interpolate perspective. But that awareness can be manipulated. The laws of perspective tell us that smaller can mean smaller--or farther away. If we do not hold that principle, consciously, in our minds, our eyes can easily be fooled.

2. A close up look at Jamison's arm "resting" directly on top of the beast's spine reveals: a.) the boy's arm is freakishly tiny, b.) the pig's individual hairs are super-sized, or, c.) more reasonably, Jamison is farther away than we assume as evoked by the illusionary juxtaposition

Figure 6. (Detail)  Notice the individual hairs, which seem gigantic when compared to the boy's arm.The wrong proportions reveal the photo is not what it appears to be at first glance.

Figure 13. With the Klutz book, you can learn about how to doctor up your own Page 1-worthy beast. For ages 9 years old and up.

Look at the boy's arm on top of the great beast in Figure 6. You can see individual hairs, which seem gigantic when compared to the boy's arm. Since we know that the individual hairs, even on a giant pig, cannot be this big, another hypothesis is that the boy's arms are very small. But relative to the length of those hairs, Stone's arms are far too small to be plausible. The only reasonable explanation is that Stone is situated to seem closer to the pig than he really is.

This kind of trickery is no mystery. Pick up one of the many books on the subject if you don't believe me. The techniques used are common knowledge. For example, The Klutz book, shown below, uses the very trick in question on the front cover. (It should be noted that the book is intended for children ages 9 and up.)

The people in the distance are lined up by the photographer while looking through the viewfinder to appear as if they are "resting" in the boy's hands in the foreground.

3. Measurements of the photo by New York University retired physicist Dr. Richard Brandt indicate a hoax

Just to be sure, we talked to renowned physicist, Dr. Richard Brandt. Brandt took the known measurements of the pig (9 feet 4 inches) and Jamison (5 feet 5 inches) and calculated their relative positions within the photograph. Assuming that the boy is directly beside the pig, he concludes that if the pig were, in fact, 9 feet 4 inches long, the boy's height would be 3 feet 9-1/2 inches.

David and Goliath indeed!

Conversely, if the boy's height were maintained at 5 feet 5 inches, the pig would scale to a whopping 15 feet! Dr. Brandt's testing reaffirms the explanation that Jamison's distance from the pig was manipulated by the photographer--a la the Sphinx and Taj Mahal--to make it appear that he was right next to the hog and effectively exaggerate its size.

4. Other photos, too, reveal discrepancies in perspective

Figure 14.	Figure 15.

In Figure 14, compare the size of the man in the tractor to the hog hanging in front. Note how from this unexaggerated, straight-on perspective the pig does not appear overwhelmingly large. Furthermore, when Figure 15 is compared to Figure 16, one can see clearly see the false perspective employed in the latter.

Here, again, we are dealing with an illusion. The multiple measurements listed directly on the photograph hammer home dimensions achieved through photo trickery. The boy is 5 feet 5 inches, says the caption. The father, 6 feet 1 inches. And the hanging hog, snout to hoof, is 10 feet 7 inches. Though Jamison and his dad appear to be standing directly adjacent to the pig they are, indeed, positioned well behind the pig.

Figure 16.

Indeed, the perspective trick in the photo above works well because the subjects' feet are aligned with of the dangling feet and snout of the hog. In a 2-dimensional representation, this careful positioning prevents the viewer from judging, exactly, where the boy and man are standing in relation to the animal. If their feet had been positioned, say, farther below the pig's snout, as in Figure 16, the eye would have information by which to judge their true position in 3-dimensional space and, more importantly, to determine the pig's real size. By carefully aligning the snout and feet in along one parallel line, the photo tricks our brain into accepting the immediate--which is to say, false-premise that the beast is humongous, instead of just large.

Figure 17A.	Figure 17B.
17A's hog, has a gun on its back. The hog in 17B mysteriously moved. Was 17A the first version of the same photograph that morphed into 17B? (UPDATE, 6/1: Mike Stone admits that the gun was photoshopped out of the image.)

Rooting in the mud: AP and FOX News should have known better than to run this story. But without consequences, what's to stop them?

In its reports about the Monster Pig, the AP used the distancing phrase, "if the claims are accurate." Why use such a qualifier if the story was independently verified? Because the AP knows from prior stories (just as we do) that there is a high probability that these "weird but true" news stories have a high probability of being debunked.

Stinky Journalism News has uncovered similar bogus stories. One about a record breaking snake. In 2004, the BBC eventually had to slither away from their false claim of a 49-foot-long snake discovered in Central Java. Reuters used a simpler but related method to the technical calculations used by Dr. Brandt to measure the relative size of the snake in context of the size of the surrounding objects in the snake photos. The BBC later withdrew their story and replaced it with another that said the snake was a mere 21 feet long after Reuters debunked their story.

In the case of the giant hog, even a cursory glance at the photo evidence should have tipped off an experienced photo editor that something was wrong. Yet no experts on photo alterations or forgeries were quoted and none were consulted by the AP or Fox News (or any other of the hundreds of media outlets world-wide who ran the AP story for that matter).

The Fox News report only touched on sources of doubt. "Kinder, who didn't witness the weigh-in, said he was baffled to hear the reported weight of 1,051 pounds because his scale an old, manual style with sliding weights only measures to the nearest 10. "I didn't quite understand that," he said. Mike Stone said the scale balanced one notch past the 1,050-pound mark, and he thought it meant a weight of 1,051 pounds. "It probably weighed 1,060 pounds. We were just afraid to change it once the story was out," he said."

But even with that gaping hole in eyewitness testimony, the story ran. Why the painful lack of skepticism? The story, it seems, was just too good to check. Put yourself in the newsroom among the editors anticipating the Memorial Day doldrums. A wild story about a gargantuan pig might well shift a few eyeballs fixated on beaches and barbecues to the web, newspapers and television screens.

Indeed, the AP, Fox News, the NY Post among others, were duped. But duped willingly. When these weird but true stories prove false, these publications can claim they were "tricked by sources" and not that they should have done better verification.

In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In journalism, the two-source rule for ANY claim, extraordinary or not, is the preferred litmus test. If a fact seems suspect, the thinking goes, add a third source. No expert opinion or documentary evidence is required.

LATER THIS WEEK: Part II

Fake the photo. Hype the hog . . . Awaiting the fall.

By faking the photo, the Stone family was able to hype their big hog. But, we will show, without a willfully pliant and manipulative press, the Stone's hoax would not have become an international sensation. The story has, literally, run hog wild. The press reports can be read in Poland.

A key question will be at the heart of our second installment: have the Stones been unwittingly set up for a great fall by their media suitors? And why did NBC suddenly cancel the Monster Pig segment after Today Show producers learned the truth from Stinky Journalism's report?

They knew.

Look for the story in Part II of our special report.

by Bill Coursey | May 1, 2008 at 07:34 AM This whole story is a little fishy to me. Before this hog (Fred) was shot I was told by Rick Trimm that I would have a role in the movie, The Legend of hogzilla. When Rick found out about the Stone hog, he told me that Mr. Stone offered to buy his son a spot in the movie. From what I have found out, that must be the case. Because there is no contact for Rick or the movie co. If anyone out there has a way to reach Rick Trimm you can let me know through my site. www.sonofhogzilla.com Thanks Bill Coursey. BrookBeast son of hogzilla / 1100lb.

by Dee | Dec 23, 2007 at 05:48 PM As soon as I saw the photo of the boy supposedly resting on the hog's back, I knew that it was faked. There is no way, no how, a hog could grow this large. I really don't think that too many people could have been fooled by this.

by TC | Jun 9, 2007 at 07:18 PM Thanks for the clarification. I realized instinctively something was wrong but couldn't put my finger on it. Then of course I realized, how tall must this 11 (??!!!) year old kid be to be able to lean so nonchalantly on this huge beast. That's what, ahem, stunk for me. But thanks for quantifying and legitimating much more articulately than I can, what was, cough cough, stinky, about this set-up. Also just very interesting to see how easily people can be manipulated.

by bval | Jun 6, 2007 at 08:29 AM I still can't tell which one is the pig. They are both fat!

by Alex D | Jun 5, 2007 at 10:48 AM I bet all you people who agreed with this moron feel like jacks yourself now don't you? Anyone that has seen a hog before knew this thing looked like a domestic hog that escaped, because generally hogs in the wild tend to stay lean. Anyway, I'm glad all you people with fallacious arguments are proven to be morons. AKA anyone that believed the writer of this article based on the "facts" presented. This was a completely false argument. While the conclusion could have been true no argument had any validity. You all fail. Everyone that questioned these stinky journalists "facts", I applaud you. Back to the article supporters I guess the “hicks” out there have more sense then you “educated” folk. Congratulations you separate yourself from the riff-raff. Your open-mindedness sets you apart. Here’s your link: http://www.smh.com.au/news/unusual-tales/giant-pig-farm-raised/2007/06/02/1180205552764.html

by JD | Jun 3, 2007 at 06:52 PM Sorry, but this lengthy and awkwardly written article is barking up the wrong tree. All your efforts to prove fakery only 'prove' one thing that everybody already knows: objects that are farther away appear to be smaller. 'Fakery' implies an intent to deceive, and nowhere in this post is there evidence of that. These are typical hunting/fishing photos, designed to show the 'prize' in a dramatic way. So, the photo with the kid kneeling behind the hog makes the hog look like it's 15 feet long -- so what? Did the Stones ever *claim* it's that big? No -- they claimed 9'4". Did any of the news agencies claim it was 15 feet? No -- all they did was run with the dramatic-looking photos, while reporting the 9'4" claimed length. Frankly, I can't believe anyone is surprised by their use of the photos; if I wanted people to buy my newspapers or watch my TV shows, I would, too. If your so-called expert had simply used the photo labelled Figure 11, as many others have pointed out, he could have saved himself a lot of trouble, as the gun's barrel length is as good as having a ruler resting on the hog's head. As for all the 'Photoshop experts' that have posted -- you're full of it. All of the size 'discrepancies' are obviously explainable by perspective changes of the camera, not retouching after the fact. No, there is nothing nefarious going on here, except for the 'hunt' itself. As a hunter, I am disgusted by these canned hunting outfits that take pen-raised animals and release them into basically just a somewhat bigger 'pen', to let lazy 'hunters' shoot them, just like fish in a barrel. Our Vice President does crap like this -- and even then, STILL manages to screw up and shoot his buddy in the face! But while Dick Cheney's out shooting 70 tamed birds in a day (look it up, if you don't believe me), his oil business cronies are ruining what's left of our natural hunting and fishing spaces. The kid's dad is obviously a 'real' winner and doing a great disservice to his son, but until you show me some evidence, I don't see where they're trying to deliberately commit fraud regarding the hog's size.

by gigi | Jun 3, 2007 at 06:21 PM Rhonda, Where does the information that this boy is 5'5" come from? I've never met a boy that age who is that tall. My 11 year old neighbor has parents who are both over 6' tall (his dad is about 6'6") and he's only about 5'0". Boys don't generally start their adolescent growth spurt until their early teens. Perhaps Jamison has gone through early puberty, but a height of 65 inches would put him well above the 97th percentile for his gender and age. I hope they aren't lying about the boy's height to hype the size of the pig.

by Dawn | Jun 5, 2007 at 07:29 PM re: his height I have been teaching elementary school for 8 years. I am 5'7". I have had 3 male students grow past me by the middle of 6th grade (11 or 12). I am not the slightest bit shocked at a 5'5" 11 year old.    by Alex D | Jun 7, 2007 at 06:56 AM Me either.   by Nick C | Oct 1, 2007 at 04:18 AM I was around 5'8" - 5'9" at age 11, 5'5" is not unreasonalbe at all when his dad is over 6 feet.

by ted | Jun 2, 2007 at 02:43 PM This scam was revealed by Anniston reporter Brian Strickland who interviewed the orginal owners, the Blissitts. http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/Story?id=3236356&page=2 Here is a segment "As the Blissitts recounted the events of the last two days, they told stories and made many references to the gentleness of their former "pet." From his treats of canned sweet potatoes to how their grandchildren would play with him, their stories painted the picture of a gentle giant. They even talked about how their small Chihuahua would get in the pen with him and come out unscathed" Blissitt stated that he was getting rid of Fred because they were GETTING RID OF ALL THEIR PIGS. They backed up their story with photos! Now that they have been criticized for dumping a pet in a canned hunting facility, their story is changing, and the AP is sending out their REVISED version. In other words, the lies and coverup. In the AP later version, Blissitt is now claiming the pig was a "nuisance." The AP has censored ALL earlier statements from the Blissitts. Shame on the AP for not only being foolish enough to fall for this scam, but now colluding with these people to cover up the truth. The AP deserves a swift kick in the pants for their participation in this episode.

by RFullenwider | Jun 2, 2007 at 01:28 PM I heard about this on NPR of all places. What a very sad tale of a tame animal being slowly shot to death by a mis-guided boy. I will never understand "hunting preserves" and the hunting of domestic animals...every real hunter worth his or her salt will find this story appalling and shameful. I hope Fred's inhumane death at least will cause more publicity about this type of cowardly "hunting".

by Specialist G | Jun 2, 2007 at 11:33 AM Wow. There's a lot of bitter 28%er's here who don't like having their illusions debunked. I'm sure that Monster Pig is every bit as real as Saddam's WMDs! BTW, bitter rednecks, it's not a "sport" if both sides don't know they're playing.

by Specialist G | Jul 23, 2007 at 02:49 PM I was wrong before, I grew up in the podunk Louisiana and used to eat gator meat and played pigskin my whole life. I dun need college cuz my ma said so and so I don't know any better than to make fun of vague indescriptive groups such as "rednecks" .. dar dar dar dar!

by Gary | Jun 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM **** Associated Press 6/1/07 - Farmers: 'Monster Pig' Not a Wild Hog, But Was Their Pet Pig 'Fred' ...Phil Blissitt said he became irritated when they learned about all the doubters who said photos of Fred were doctored. **** Look at the name at the top of this web page. This begs the question, "How in the world can something named blah blah...Ethics blah blah...Art Science Research Laboratory be so bitterly, stupidly wrong about anything, much less about a picture of a pig?" I see that Mr. Stone has unlinked this fountain-of-truth website from his own. You may just decide to let this one go, lest it eat you up from the inside out.

by Terre | Jun 2, 2007 at 06:58 AM Let the kid have his glory? He follows a former pet pig around a pen and shoots it half a dozen times with a handgun before it falls. Then his father tricks up some photos, makes up a story about a "feral" pig in the "wilds of Alabama" and fires up a website to sell tshirts. This thing was complete hogwash from start to finish. These people are raising their children to make a buck by defrauding people and killing for sport. I hate hunting, but no righteous hunter would have used that gun to kill an animal that size. Think how that pig suffered. The Stone family is thoroughly disgusting. They should be ashamed I bet every one of the writers here who think this whole thing is all just fine and dandy also backs Bush's war. And why not? It's the same story.

by An Amused Hunter | Nov 24, 2007 at 06:58 AM Humans have hunted since they found out that animals were tasty. Its a fact, deal with it. I'm posting this because another comment amused me. The comment by Terre stating "I hate hunting, but no righteous hunter would have used that gun to kill an animal that size" had me rolling. The gun is reported as a 50 cal revolver, which is, in fact, a HUGE pistol. Most hunters' rifles actually use shells fairly close to half the size of that pistol's. As far as the pig suffering...... at least it's being used for consumption as well as hoodwinkery. Yum.

by Bess | Jun 2, 2007 at 06:44 AM You know, I'm against hunting and a former member of PETA. I'm appalled that an 11-year-old with the eyes of a zombie has been taught since he was 5 to kill other creatures, though (try to) understand this is part of his culture. But this post - ok, what I skimmed of it - hits a level of petty inanity that trumps whatever I feel about the act itself. You can't be serious. I mean, I've taken photos like this within the last week, where the perspective varies unpredictably from one picture to the next .The kid is leaning on his knee in one. In another he's in a different position. Etc. Oh, hold on. This is like a parody of longwinded pseudo-science from the incomparable Onion, right down to the self-important "expert" opinion. I get it. Nicely done!

by art guerrilla | Jun 2, 2007 at 04:55 AM 1. fantasy-based nekkid apes who are just so upset that someone *dares* to debunk this charming little tale are useless mouthbreathers; shut your yap before a fly gets in... 2. the writer is right, it *is* important to call out the moronic mainstream media whenever they engage in sloppy 'journalism' (read: infotainment), *regardless* of how petty, silly, or pointless the story is... in fact, all the more reason to do so; if they are so sloppy and gullible on a nothing-burger of a story, i wonder (no i don't, i know) how sloppy they are on the rest of their 'reporting'... 3. it is really appalling at the number of people here who express 'who cares? let them have their little hoax...' ahhh, i see we've uncovered the 25% of lockstep babbits who believe king george no matter what lies he tells... and dinosaurs laid down with the baby jeebus in the manger too... (those photos were *not* faked!) 4. the backstory of a farm-raised piggie being herded in front of the pig-boy to be blown away is even more disgusting than the hoax itself... not known by many non-hunters, 'baiting' and otherwise setting the game up for slaughter is probably more common than rugged daniel-boone-types stalking their prey through the wilderness... like the clipped wing farm pheasants that are planted in boxes for 'hunters' like dick cheney to 'hunt' and subsequently blow dozens/hundreds out of the air after they are released, it is shameful that 'real' hunters condone such despicable affairs... art guerrilla aka ann archy eof

by Alex Dippel | Jun 7, 2007 at 07:08 AM Way to tie religion into this debate. I guess you think you have a good point. Take a look in the mirror, because you're as much of a follower as there ever will be. I doubt any of your arguments are your own. More than likely just tidbits you pieced together out of a book or two. Congratulations you are incapable of original thought or questioning those who question. The typical rebel without a clue, continue on... Oh and by the way I've hunted and killed real animals and I don't think there is any fairness to it regardless of whether they are free in the wild or wing clipped defenseless doltish birds. Either way if they don't shoot back, you're not on an even playing field. The majority of hunters do not kill "baited" animals as you say, that's hearsay at best.

by Ted | Jun 1, 2007 at 11:33 PM He was a pet. His name was Fred. This pig was a domesticated pet. It had been taught to trust and love people. His name was Fred. He played with the original owner's grandchildren, and their tiny dog. They fed him canned yams as a treat. He was a gentle, loving giant. Stone, armed with heavy artillery, shot at this tame pet for 3 hours. The animal likely bled to death. This was in a fenced area. Please read about "canned hunting." This is not hunting. This is psychopathic activity.

by Artemis | Jun 1, 2007 at 08:04 PM You do realize that you have actually not "debunked" anything? You claim that the picture is taken from a perspective meant to make the pig in the foreground appear bigger, which is probably true - but that in itself does not prove that the pig was not of the measurements provided by the family. In fact, if you use the gun to estimate the size of the hog in figure 11, you'll get about 9 feet. To debunk something, you need to prove that the facts of the story (such as the size and weight of the animal) are not true, not that one picture looks "off". Because that in of itself does not invalidate the claims.

by muze | Jun 1, 2007 at 07:54 PM You dont need to be anti-hunting to see that this is a hoax. Hoaxes often bring money and attention. That's why people do it. And -- shocker -- even people in Alabama lie, cheat and steal. I'm so tired of southerners acting like the rest of the country doesn't matter. That they, men of the south, are the only honorable people on the planet. That, my friends, doesn't pass the smell test. There are scoundrels in both New York and Alabama. And hunters too.

by Stumblebum | Jun 1, 2007 at 05:55 PM Poor Fred. Yep, that's the hog's name. He was sold by a pig farmer to that worthless shooting range four days before the "hunt". Fred was a gentle hand-raised pig that was probably coming up to the kid to get some treats. It looks to me that the pictures are a matter of perspective, not Photoshopping. 17a/b are two different photos taken almost at the same time, with the gun removed and b taken at a lower angle to empasize the height of Fred. Measuring the kid's height won't work as the kid is kneeling with his arm clearly on his knee, NOT on the back of the hog as you're saying. Sure, it's a perspective trick, but I doubt that it's intentionally done. It's just a shame that they call this a hunt. Shooting tame pigs in an enclosed fence isn't sport, it's just a poor , unkind version of hog slaughtering.

by flo23 | Jun 1, 2007 at 04:40 PM Figure 17A and 17B were taken by 2 differnt cameras thats why they look different you can spot that from amile away and lady shut the hell up your story makes no fucking sense. how can he be 7 feet away in Figure 2. get a life your story sucks and you will never be a good reporter.

by gustavo | Nov 24, 2007 at 08:18 PM be quite redneck!!!

by David | Jun 1, 2007 at 03:38 PM I don't doubt that the hog he killed is actually huge, however, there is no doubt that the photos were taken in an effort to enhance the size of the hog. Shame on anyone that would use their son for such a misleading financial gain.

by CJ | Jun 1, 2007 at 02:04 PM First I'd like to say that if this is a hoax or not obvioiusly it is entertaining to people on many levels and in a world where war makes the front page everyday i think hoax or not this is refreshing for a change. Secondly to the supposed artist, i question your reasoning in that if this were of interest to you based on your experience as an artist, which i can only assume means you have experience with photoshop, why have you not focused your debunkment of these photos based on that, rather then writing a backwards and scientificly based, over wordy nitt picky story? thirdly as an artist who does have experience with photoshop it can be pointed out in no confusing terms that the photos are at the least "doctered" if not completely fake. 1. looking at figure 2. the pig in the picture seems to be significantly more pixilated ie blurry in comparision to the boy. Anyone who has used photoshop knows this is caused when a picture is expanded beyond it original size. This makes sense in that to make the pigappear larger the picture would have been expanded. 2. Also in figure 2. it was claimed by stinky journalism writters that the boy is resting on the pigs back. however the discrepancy they noted was that the boy must have been further back than the pig. Monster pig.com hwoever i beleive correctly states that the boy is resting on his kaki clad knee. My opinion. The boys arm is infact resting on his knee. but they also claim that the boy is directly next to the pig. This is what is untrue as i dont beleive the boy is in the same original picture with the pig. If the boy is in the Picture with the pig and the boy is directly next to the pig as is claimed and his knee is what is seen as his arm rest his foot would therfore be resting on the ground if he is kneeling as is stated. That would seem to make for some awfuly long legs on someone who stand 5'5'' tall. My explaination the boy was not originally in the pigture at all but cut and pasted through photoshop. Thereforethe size of the pigand the boy are able to be changed to suit sizing needs and then the boy is placed in at the higher heightto result in the final picture. 3. Lastly, looking at figure 11 and 12. Using just a crude technique of drawing and measuring if you hold up a peice of paper to the boys head in fig. 11 and measure it and then hold that measurement up to the snout of the pig in figure 11. the comparison is that the boys head is just a bit smaller than the whole snout (nose and mouth). If the same thing is done to figure 12. The boys head is only about the size of the pigs nose. If the pictures are untouched or undoctured or no illusions the boys head in comparison to the snout or arguably to the pig in general should be the same from one picture to the next. The explaination for the difference is that the boy is merely standing farther and closer to the pig between pictures as is suggested by stinky journalism or as i further believe the boy and the pig are two separate pictures, combined each time with different ratios between the two pictures. no mater what the course of production for these pictures the fact is they are entertaining. So Lay off a kid who may or may not have killed the biggest pig on record. But as for his dad, shame on you for teaching your son to lie.

by Summer | Jun 1, 2007 at 01:53 PM Is it so hard for everyone to believe that there may actually be a hog that large lurking in the woods? I live in the South, and some of these woods are so dense, bigfoot could probably be in there too and go unnoticed. It seems to me that someone has way too much time on their hands to sit around and examine a photo so closely. Why does it make others feel good when they criticize an eleven year-old boy? Do something that is actually productive for mankind and stop criticizing others.

by H-Mirage | Jun 1, 2007 at 01:28 PM I really wish this article were written better. All the "proof" needed to see that the hog photo is a fake is to actually look at the photo, compare the claims (x.foot long pig weighing y.lbs) and see with your own eyes that those dimensions *plainly* aren't being represented. All the ridiculous expert wrangling and overwrought hamfisting (no pun intended) really just make the author sound petulent. To all the commentors who keep asking what the big deal is, and along the lines of "lighten up, give the kid a break", I gotta say shut the hell up. Journalism isn't entertainment. The reason we put so much importance on sources and accountability is that, ultimately, people have to be able to trust what they see and read as being factual. Unlike misery memoirs and movies of the week, the job of journalism is not to bend the truth to make it more lurid, or to occasionally throw out a fib just to be subversive. (I'll forgive anyone in the UK who doesn't know this, as it seems to be EXACTLY what journalism is meant to be over there...)It really matters. I wonder if the braintrusts spouting the "what's the big deal?" nonsense feel similarly about the recent revelations that photographer Adnan Hajj doctored dozens of war photos over at Reuters....

by Anon | Jun 1, 2007 at 12:54 PM Google southeastern trophy hunters. Find the link about the pig dating back to April 28. Click cached. Stinkyjournalism is a joke. They are going to have us believe that as part of this massive conspiracy the the hog was falsely advertised as being over 1000 lbs before it was killed? Were the Stone's part of the conspiracy from the beginning? In other words, the advertisement was just posted for show because it was already predetermined who would bag it? Or only after the hog was killed did the family agree to participate in the photoshopping?

by Chuck from Arkansas | Jun 1, 2007 at 07:18 AM After reviewing the photos and reading your debunking process I must agree with you. There are many inconsist issues regarding the photos. They should have use a target or object in front of the animal or had the young man sit on the hog or as one of the comments stated use a tape measure. I too, was taken in without much thought. Good Work.

by Dan Smithson | Jun 1, 2007 at 06:49 AM Solve the JFK shooting and I would find you much more believable, then you can pick on kids that hunt. Why does it matter anyway? Get a life!

by C.Daniel | Jun 1, 2007 at 06:26 AM OK, here is the thing. The boy is not standing, but kneeling as you can see that his arm is resting on his knee. Why are you trying to make this story something other than what it is? Let the boy have is momeny of glory. My advise to the writer of this article, Get a life!

by Glenn | Jun 1, 2007 at 06:21 AM For those who don't understand the point of investigating such tales here's my view. Any group that seeks out fakes, frauds and false reporting is just fine with me. The boys dad has arranged to have a website built, sell photos and dupe others out of their money. Misrepresentation for financial gain shows poor charector, lack of morals and ethics and is simply wrong. Fishing such people out is a worthy cause and I support it.

by Alex D. | Jun 1, 2007 at 05:22 AM What is your argument? Your analysis doesn't make any sense whatsoever. There is also a much easier way to calculate the length of the pig, but it seems like you'd rather use complicated jargon to sound official. I'm all for this hog being a hoax, but disprove the story using facts not by claiming to be an expert in analysis due to your art degree. I haven't seen anything on your poorly designed website to suggest that you either know what you're talking about or are much of an artist either, so by your logic you must be lying about your credentials and by extension anything you say is probably also false. Your expert: http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/brandt.richard.html Dr. Brandt is an expert in theoretical physics with is main works relating to the human body, sports, and quantum field theory. It's interesting that this is the "expert" you chose to do your analysis when anyone can easily make the calculations required and there are certainly others out there who are better fits as "experts".