Evidence of Manipulation of Stone Feral Hog Shooting Photographs

This site also available at www.sandpointgallery.com/pig


"These are authentic pictures --They have not been altered" -- Mike Stone (source FoxNews/StinkyJournalism.org)



(Note the changing tree markings between these pictures that were on MonsterPig.com)


Figure 11a
A closeup of Figure 11 (found on the MonsterPig.com website), showing a cloned part of the tree, an apparent attempt to cover the mistake in the above picture. Note that the white line from the digitally removed image of the father is still to the right on the hog's hairline (see Figure 16 below).
Figure 11b.
A closeup of Figure 11, showing plants that are clearly cloned digitally, again proving 'photoshop'/digital alterations in pictures posted on MonsterPig.com -- How often do plants and branches duplicate themselves in nature?







There is new evidence and PROOF of digitial manipulation of photographs on the site MonsterPig.com, below the main section, or click here

See Art Science Research Laboratory's Report at www.stinkyjournalism.org

How easy is it to digitally enlarge an animal in a picture? Click here to see one done in less than twenty minutes.


New: Evidence of Digital Manipulation to make Hog Larger


Introduction

First, I think it is important not to take anything away from Jamison Stone, as it is also important not to allow forgeries and manipulations to endure.  It is clear that a rather large hog was taken, most certainly by Jamison Stone.    Even in the presumably untouched photograph presented here (figure 2 only; all others presented here seem to be manipulated, some provably so in absolute terms), it is clear that the hog taken was a rather large hog, but not nearly the size as suggested by clear photographic manipulation (either through a 'Photoshop' program or on-site perspective trickery).

Presented below are two basic sets of photographs that clearly show manipulation, one at least through digital means (i.e. 'Photoshop'), and the other either a perspective trick, though most certainly done in 'Photoshop', since there does not appear to be enough room in the background to perform such a shot.  Since the main image of the boy behind the hog that looks as big as a horse has been dissemated widely across the Internet and, indeed, the world, I believe it is very important to show definitively that the pictures, as per their intended representation, are frauds.


Purpose

This report is meant to supplement the StinkyJournalism.com report at www.stinkyjournalism.org.  It includes more pictures, timelines, and other information to show why all of this is happening.


The Evidence

The basic issue of concern is whether or not a) the images were digitally altered and b) the hog was indeed as big as presented in papers around the world.

Author

The author of this website is Rob Nelson, president of 19th Parallel, LLC, located in Sunnyvale, Ca., working to develop new digital display technology on the desktop and HD/BluRay DVDs.   I also specialize in the restoration of historical photographs (see www.sandpointgallery.com for some examples), and am an expert in digital imaging, enhancement, and digital manipulation (i.e. 'Photoshop') techniques.   I may be reached at  rob2048@hotmail.com

This site may be also reached at www.sandpointgallery.com/pig



Figure 1.
Picture distributed widely around the Internet (source: StinkyJournalism.org; original source: MonsterPig.com)



As you can see, in Figure 1, this picture from the MonsterPig.com website, shows the hog to be extremely large.  While this picture may just be a purposeful perspective trick, it appears to be photoshopped.  There appears to be not enough room in the background for the boy to be as far back as required (see Figure 2) to perform the trick; in addition, because of the trees, he would appear much darker if he were much farther back than the animal.  Therefore, either way, some photoshop skill is required to make this picture work.  Also, as StinkyJournalism.org reports, the arm resting on the pig does not look natural.

Figure 2.
Natural-perspective picture (seemingly untouched) with a more realistic relationship between the sizes of the hunter and feral hog (source www.texashuntingforum.com).


Figure 2 is the 'Smoking Gun'.  It appears to be an untouched photograph showing the size of the hog.  Still a rather large hog, it is hardly the size as depicted in figure one.  Fortunately, this picture was shot at a fairly close (a little elevated) angle to Figure 1, which allows us to overlay this picture on Figure 1.  When scaled to the same size and overlayed, the hog is nearly a perfect match between pictures.


Figure 3.
Superimposed image to show altered size of boy in original picture.


As you can see, the hog in Figure 2 superimposed nearly perfectly over Figure 1.  There is a very slight perspective change, as the first picture was taken at a slightly higher point than Figure 1. Otherwise, this picture is a very close match to Figure 1.  Figure 2  was not found on MonsterPig.com, but on www.texashuntingforum.com, where someone re-posted it.  There appears to have been a number of pictures from MonsterPig.com that were on the site, but can no longer be found (at least by me).


Figure 4.
'Photoshopped' version of merged pictures to show realistic 'photoshop' rendering, showing the dramatic small size of the boy in the original picture.  The large version of the boy is moved down due to a small perspective difference between Figure 1 and Figure 2.  Also, the boy may appear somewhat larger due to this perspective shift, though not more than a few percent.

Figure 4a..  Image obtained from CBS news.


Figure 4 is a 'photoshopped' version of the two merged pictures.  It shows a more natural size relation between the boy and the hog, and also shows the ridiculous small size of the boy in the original picture.  For the benifit of doubt, even if we reduced the size of the larger boy a little for perspective, he still outsizes himself in the picture more than 2-to-1.

This shows, without any doubt to me, the trickery used in this picture, whether digital or on-site

.



Figure 5.
A closeup of Figure 1, showing the relative height of boys head as compare to marks on tree.  This is under the assumption, as the picture suggests, that the boy was parallel or slightly in front of the tree (which would make his head bigger as compared to them marks on the tree).



Figure 5 shows the distance of the marks on the tree in relation to the boy's head in the picture (Figure 1) from MonsterPig.com.   Compare this to the distance in Figure 2 found on an external site.




Figure 6.
A Closeup of Figure 2, showing the relative size of the boy's head to the marks on the tree.  In this picture,  the boy is in front of the tree.  Since the hog was not moved and the boy is 'leaning' on the hog in the first picture, the distance to the tree would be the same, with some slight differences due to camera angle.  However, note the much smaller length between marks in this picture, as opposed to Figure 5.


Figure 6 shows the distance between the marks on the tree and the boy's head from Figure 2, which appears to be untouched and/or unmanipulation.  As you can see, the boys head is much larger in relation to the marks, as compared to Figure 1, showing that some serious  manipulation has occured in Figure 1.





Figure 9 (source: StinkyJournalism.org).
Note the tree in the background (compare with above picture). Although from the same basic angle as Figures 1 and 2, the tree has been digitally altered and the markings are removed, proving some digital alteration of the picture. The boy's contast and light levels are different from the rest of the picture, and, most notably, his low position to the hog suggests the hog is quite big, though Figure 2 shows this is absolutely impossible.


Figure 9, obtained from StinkyJournalism (original source from MonsterPig.com is not verified).  Shows the tree behind the boy has no marks, though it was taken at a similar angle to the other pictures (see Figure 8 above for comparison).  This graphically shows obvious digital manipulation in this photograph.  Furthermore, from Figure 2, we can see that the boy's level to the hog is impossible, showing that not only has this picture been manipulated, but that it's intention is to suggest that the hog is much larger than it's actual size.

Feedback: rob2048@hotmail.com





More Newly Acquired Evidence: A response to the page http://www.monsterpig.com/talk_about_stinky_journalism.htm


MonsterPig.com itself proves photographic manipulation

The website MonsterPig.com put up a page in response to StinkyJournalism.org's report of the photographic manipulations.  This page has now been taken down from MonsterPig.com, along with all pictures (except one).


Photograph #1


Figure 10 (source: http://www.monsterpig.com/New_Folder/picbackgroung.jpg)

The original picture circulated throughout the Internet.
.

Photograph #2


Figure 11  (source: http://www.monsterpig.com/New_Folder/NBC1.jpg)

Another picture with the boy behind the hog.


If we combine these pictures and overlay them into an animated .GIF, we can see what was shown above in Figure 9, but more graphically.


Figure 12.


As you can see, the tree markings change dramatically between pictures, and there is absolutely no doubt that the image has been manipulated.

Another Example

More than this, and without respect to the size of the hog itself, there is a picture of the boy and his dad, and another with just the boy, that is provably the same exact picture, with photoshop remnants left over .

The Pictures:



Figure 13 (source: StinkyJournalism.org).


Figure 14 (source: StinkyJournalism.org).

If we overlay these pictures in an animated gif, we see the following:



Figure 15.

Figure 15 shows the exact same picture used for both photographs. Also note other things appearing and disappearing, or changing, in the two pictures.  In a closeup, we can see Photshop artifacts where the father was removed, and the 'blank' of the original picture was placed back over the empty space.



Figure 16.

As you can see in Figure 16, the white line is where the father's shirt was not completely removed. 




Evidence of Manipulation to make hog look larger

At this point, almost no one doubts that pictures from MonsterPig.com are digitally manipulated . However, there has been some commentary that, while these pictures have been photoshopped and there is a huge perspective issue with the originally released picture (i.e. the hog isn't nearly as big as it looks), that it doesn't prove that there was any digital/photoshop manipulation to make the hog look larger.

I felt that since the people at MonsterPig.com were willing to put manipulated photographs on the site, that this (among other things) would put controversy and distrust on the entire happening.  After all, if one is willing to lie about one claim, how can they be trusted about another claim on the same thing using the same mechanism?

I originally decided not to put such information up, to stick to information that can be proven instantaneously.  However, I have put up some pictures and information below, that, to me, proves without a doubt that the pictures have also been manipulated to increase the size of the hog.

There is a  large amount of evidence and other pictures to show conclusively that the pictures were digitally altered to make the hog look larger, but would take up much more room than would be reasonable.  But, I thought this one set of evidence might be compelling.





The Evidence

Presented below, Figure 17, is an animated GIF combining Figure 2 with Figure 13, showing the discrepancies between them.  The evidence that the picture was digitally manipulated (not a photographic perspective trick) to make the hog larger is as follows:


Figure 17.

  1. The picture was taken at relatively the same vertical angle, and a slightly shifted horizontal angle.
    1. The bark on the tree does not change very much, as it would if the angle were very different.
    2. The trees on the left are in the same basic position
    3. The focal length differential between pictures is low (i.e. one is not wideangle and the other zoomed in, etc.)
  2. The angle to the tree from the pig is about the same
    1. Enlargements to normalize the picture show that the pig in both pictures is at the same relative vertical angle, and a slightly different horizontal angle
      1. Note how much 'flatter' the hog looks in the picture from Figure 2, which is the only picture referred to on this site thought to be free from digitial manipulation.
  3. The pig is much smaller in one picture, and much larger in the other. The tree to the woods is at the same horizontal angle.
    1. This suggests that the pig was enlarged in the original picture and placed back onto the same picture, only larger
  4. The original picture was shot at a slightly down or straight angle. Since they have the same basic vertical angle, this means both pictures were shot at the same basic vertical angle.
    1. This suggests that the father and son were photoshopped into the picture, as there is no possible room for them in their relative positions with the pig at this angle
      1. There is no possible way to get the hog at that angle to the tree in both pictures, without a severe distortion between the pictures
      2. For instance, if you look at the markings on the back of the pig, they move about from one picture to the next -- there is no possible way to achieve this at the same angle. You can also see how the hog is 'stretched' digitally between the pictures by watching the markings on the hog's back -- notice the 'hump' effect.,
  5. Not exactly evidence, but... note that the eyes of both people in the photograph are looking down at something.  This does not suggest a 'trophy' picture (see Figure 13 for enlargement)
e-mail: rob2048@hotmail.com