dalliwacker.....never said i was an expert. And no, I didn't have the picture in front of me while I was typing up my 2 cents worth. I saw the picture at work and knew when I saw this forum, exactly what picture the author was refering too. Then a friend of mine passed it along to me with more typical internet B/S.

I don't know about Alaska news media, but here in southern CA, if a person kills a let's say for example an 800lb bear, it hits the news.

My question is this:
1) why didn't the news media (any network), including outdoorlife channel and the outdoor channel, FOX, TNN, CNN, heck even AM radio etc... mention this "WORLD RECORD" bear????

2) Who is this guy "Ted"???? When Chuck Adams took a giant world class elk, it was broadcast all over the "hunting community" media outlets and VERIFIED as well. Not to mention, local L.A. radio news mentioned it, which is definately outside the hunting media outlets. WAY outside. He took a large elk and the media talked about it. With a giant alleged bear weighing 1600lbs, I know we would have heard about it! That's a monstor bear for heaven's sake!

Haven't heard about this "Ted" guy and his 1600lb bear at all.

Dalliwacker, since you yourself are claiming to be a computer photo enhancement expert too, how do you know what kind of computer software was used to doctor the WTC photos? And how do we know this "Ted's Bear picture" was just a photograph as you claimed, that was scanned and NOT "doctored" via computer?

Any photo can be scanned to disk/computer, then easily "doctored" up as well, once the image is transformed to a computer.

I'd be willing to bet that an actual bear was taken. I'll give you that. Probably a really big bear as well. But I don't believe the size as reported (on the internet) is correct. It's probably exagerated by several hundred pounds. Yeah, I guess anything is possible, but I doubt it.

Also Dalliwacker, i agree with you in that "Ted" is at the rear of the bear's rump. Way back at the bear's rump. If the camera man gets really close to the bear's head, it's (bear's head) going to take up a lot of "space" in that particular photograph, while "Ted" is back by the rump of the bear looking really really small. The end result is a bear that looks like it's "1600lbs" (as quoted originally) compared to the average sized man next to the bear.

Now, I'm not ashamed to say "I was wrong" and to appologize. I've done it before and it takes a man to admit when he's wrong. I'll do it again if I see, perhaps a respectable hunting magazine or something actually publish this story and VERIFY the truth to this hunting tale. Like an independant news source. Not someone who claims to "have been there on the hunt."

Unfortunately the internet is made up of about 50% liars and 50% confused & misguided good intentioned story tellers.

Right now, my "B/S" meter is just registering on "high". If I'm wrong, then so be it. It just looks like another one of grandpa's hunting tales.