Monster Pig is HOG WASHED! Bigger than Hogzilla?

iMediaEthics publishes international media ethics news stories and investigations into journalism ethics lapses.


Home » Disproportionate Coverage»

Figure 1. NBC TODAY SHOW DUPED! Joins the club with AP, Fox News, ABC, CBS, CNN and other world media outlets who were fooled by the monster pig photos. Hoax busted by a special investigation. NBC forced to either debunk their own May 29th report or make 11th hour cancellation with guests en route. Producers chose the latter.

  • NBC Today Show cancels segment on monster pig after flying boy and father to NYC instead of disclosing their role and the hog hoax to the public
  • AP photo fails stink test according to retired NYU physicist, Richard Brandt
  • Scientific measurements prove that if the boy is 5 feet 5 inches, as cited, the pig would measure a colossal 15 feet (and not the 9 feet 4 inches that is asserted)
  • Alternatively, Brandt’s report  states, the boy’s height would be a puny 3 feet 9-1/2 inches instead of 5 feet 5 inches, if the beast’s length was calculated at 9 feet 4 inches, as claimed

* See full list of Monster Pig reports here.

SPECIAL REPORTExclusive: Follow the Bacon:
Part II

12 year old faces possible Grand Jury charges for animal cruelty.Hog Washed!: Part I
Stinky Journalism investigation debunks AP and FOX News: “Giant Hog with Small Boy” Photo

  • Alabama’s Monster Pig Hoax, one year later
    Consequences of infamous youth pig kill still being played out
  • Hyped Hog Hits Speedbump on Way to Fame:
    Will Monster Pig and Boy Photo continue to fetch $500 a pop?
  • Mike Stone, Unturned:
    Rhonda Shearer’s response to monster pig’s rant
  • Pig Tales:
    When news becomes a game, everyone loses.
  • Big Pig Smack Down: Big Norm’s Owner Weighs In
    Says Monster Pig a Fraud Like Hogzilla
  • “The Monster Pig Photo’s a Fake”: Reader’s Comments
    Exclusive Interview: With Kerry Dart, New York Farmer and Owner of World’s Largest Hog
  • INTERPORK: Swedish Publication Hunts Down American Hogzilla II Hoax
  • [Comics for Media Reform] – Associated Press Lets Monster Pig Photo Fly
    – “Monster Pig! But I’m Fred”

**Note: 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 links are referenced from our archive.

What’s going on here in these six dramatic photographs posted to the 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.

Awe-inspiring Photograph of Boy Hunter and his Kill. Here lies the monster pig and his slayer, Jamison Stone, 11 years old.

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.

National Geographic exhumed the last wannabe, “Hogzilla”

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”

Monster Pig versus Hogzilla: Jamison Stone’s web site, 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.

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.

Jamison has a part in the forthcoming “Hozilla Movie” now in casting.

Jamison Stone’s web site,, 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 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.

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).

” She’s in the foreground, enlarged by perspective, the spinx is in he background” explains

“Relative Size illusions trick the eye into believing objects are smaller or greater than their original size,” according to (images courtesy

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.)

This 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.

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 20th 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 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.

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 web site.

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

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.

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.

Technical Analysis
of Monster Pig Photographs

Dr Richard Brandt, Physicist, New York University, Retired

Figure 11

In Figure 11, the photo of the boy is sitting kneeling behind the hog, the photo shows the actual relative sizes of the boy and hog. The corresponding geometry is illustrated in Figure A. The effective observers eye is at the left, the plane of the photograph is a distance x2 to the right, the hog is centered a distance x1 from this plane, and the boy is a distance d behind the hog center. The height f of the hog and height f3 of the boy above the hog can be determined from measurements on the photograph, normalized by the known 9′ length of the hog. The distance d and actual height h of the hog can be determined from the width of the hog measured from the photograph of the hanging hog, normalized by the known 9′-4″ length of the hanging hog. The actual height a of the kneeling boy can be determined from the same photograph. The geometry of Figure 11 implies the following equality among these lengths:

(f+f3)/x2 = a/(x1+x2+d)

Figure 12

In Photo, Figure 12, the boy appears to be much smaller and leaning onto the hog. Given Photo, Figure 11 , it is clear that what was actually photographed was the boy standing far behind the hog, kneeling, making the hog appear to be much larger relative to the boy. The situation is illustrated in Figure B. The eye, photograph plane, and hog position are as in Figure A, and the boy is standing a distance x (to be determined) behind the hog. In the figure, f2 is the size of the boy’s head (hat to chin) in the photograph, and f1 is the distance between the boy’s chin and the top of the hog. (Notice how the perspective geometry reduces the actual size b1 of the boy’s head to the relatively smaller size f2 in the photograph.) These distances can be determined from measurements on the photograph. The actual height b1 and b of the boy’s head and body can be determined from the hanging hog picture (The boy’s height is b + b1 = 5′-5″ .) The geometry of Figure 12 implies the following equalities among these lengths:

h/(x1+x2) = f/x2, b/(x+x1+x2) = (f+f1)/x2

The above three equations can be solved for the three unknowns x, x1, and x2. The result is that the boy is standing about x = 7 feet behind the center of the hog. This result is approximate because the various distance measurements made on the photographs have some uncertainty due to blurred details and possible distortions in the photographs, as well as probable inaccuracies in the reported size of the boy and hog. It seems probable the x value actually lies between 5 and 9 feet. Note that if the boy in Figure 11 were actually standing right behind the hog, the boy would be only about 4 feet tall instead of over 5 feet.

Figures 14 and 15

4. Other photos, too, reveal discrepancies in perspective

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.


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.

* See full list of Monster Pig reports here.

Submit a tip / Report a problem

Monster Pig is HOG WASHED!

Share this article:

89 Responses

  1. Phillip says:

    Your analysis it completely unconvincing. As a hunter, photographer and mechanical engineer, here’s the truth. 1.) the picture with the boy behind the pig does NOT require him to be 7 ft behind the be pig because he is not standing up but resting his elbow on his knee. (which if you take his reduced height due to half kneeling, scales perfectly to to take into account the proper length of the pig) 2.)The man with the “cropped” fingers is quite possible just resting his bent fingers on the boys shoulder while the boys clothes create the look of being cropped. 3.) The shadows you identify as being a sign of a poor photoshop job, are being created by the flash from the camera being off center from the camera lens. This is a completely normal effect that can be seen in almost any photo where a strong flash is used to illuminate the subject. There is a simple explanation for every single issue you bring up. Sincerely, Phillip

  2. Dale says:

    I can’t take anything you say about the hog photos serious as I can’t see any of the photos. All I see are little red X’s. Are the X’s what you are measuring

  3. Rick says:

    I have been Photoshopping for years and these pictures are really bad. When I first saw the original, posted in the news, I noticed the boy’s shirt color and resolution was too high for the rest of the picture. The hog and background are out of focus, but the boy’s clothes are bright and crisp. The hog and background are also of a color management that doesn’t fit the boy. The other pictures are conveniently out of focus and the hog is cut too cleanly (no pun intended). And another thing, the dad is hocking posters and running ads to make money. It’s unfortunate how people glom onto to these hoaxes to get a headline or believe whatever they see online. It’s all internet crap.

  4. Richard says:

    Give credit to Foxnews, They linked to this page.

  5. ma says:

    not only did they fake the photos, they also did not hunt the pig they slaughtered it. The pig was released into a 200 acre enclosure and sold to them The gentleman in the picture with Jamison is the guide from Southeast Trophy Hunter, and has admitted the pig was killed inside a pen. I am an avid hunter and this is NOT what I want the public to think hunting is all about… The father is a disgrace…

  6. Jerry says:

    Looking at the photo with the gun in it is the most proof, there is no doubt how long it is but appears as a regular pistol in the main photo. I agree its a fake

  7. Patrick Rusk says:

    I don’t actually understand the point of your article. Are you claiming that the pig is not the 9 feet 4 inches that was claimed, or that the boy’s positioning makes it seem bigger than claimed?Honestly, how hard can this be to verify empirically? Send someone out there on a plane, go to the taxidermist, and examine the hide and skull.It seemed to me from the start that there was some perspective involved in the most widely published photograph, but they clearly have other available photos that don’t have perspective.If the pig was, in fact, 9′ 4″, I don’t think it’s much of a hoax. If they were claiming that it was 15 feet (instead of its actually 9′ 4″), that would be a hoax. Or if it is substantially smaller (say, less than 8′ 6″), I would consider that a hoax.Are you claiming that it is smaller than 9′ 4″? I don’t actually see you saying that.I also don’t understand what you mean by showing figures 17A and 17B. You have no accompanying text for them.

  8. Just another critic says:

    Sure seems like you’ve spent an awful lot of time analyzing and trying to explain something that doesn’t seem that big a deal. Perspective is something that not a lot of people think about when taking pictures with a cheap digital camera or even one of those “one shot” film cameras. Your article seems to imply that these people purposely had the photographic knowledge, skills and planning to willfully mislead others. If so, okay. So what? Somehow I doubt they did. You note that in the photograph of the boy “leaning” on the pig’s spine that the hairs are too big. In my opinion, the boy is actually leaning on his own left leg and is some distance behind the pig (on purpose?). In another sets of photos you ponder how the gun was “removed”. It is obviously a completely different photograph. The gentlemen on the far right (the viewer’s right) has also moved slightly, his head is tilted differently and his fingers are in a different position. I truly wonder why someone would want to “edit” out the gun.

  9. MM says:

    I wanted to say Thank you to the media for covering this story, although bogus.As someone who deals with cancer patients and the seriousness of everything relating to it, I did welcome this crazy story with open arms.Sometimes we need something like this just for the heck of it.We are living with some very somber issues in this World today, and this was a nice break from that.KUDOS to FOX and the AP.Thanks for the GREAT distraction and the laughter that goes with it!

  10. Thoron says:

    If I would hunt down such a hog I would sit on it or stand in front of it to prove its size and not hide behind it. I’m a PhotoShop artist doing digital photo alterations for years and it clearly looks like fake thing.

  11. tina says:

    I am glad to see the story debunking Hogzilla. I believe however if you look at the original picture again, he is actually kneeling on one knee, and the arm resting on the heightened knee. Great Story!!! Keep debunking!!!

  12. Gary Bridges says:

    What I would like to know is, why didn’t Jamison take a picture in front of the pig? If I wanted to prove how big the pig was, I would have place a tape measure beside the pig. It does sound kind of fishy.

  13. Mark Werner says:

    This is all common sence people, especially if you are a hunter. Throw out all of you goemtry bull crap and using the little common sense you have. To make somthing look bigger, you take a picture of the object you want to look bigger close up with the nearest backround piece further way. The young man was probaly 10 feet behind the pig in the picture where he didn’t have the gun over the pigs neck. There is nothing wrong with that. They didn’t “doctor” the picture, they just set the backround to give the picture a different perspective. People do it all the time in hunting photos. You hold the fish out away form oyur body, but straight away, so people can’t see your arms, nad since it is farther from your body, it doubles the size of the fish in comparison to your body. Most sportsman do this because it makes there quarry look bigger. I’ve done this many times for fun, just to see what differnece it makes, and it is amazing what it can do by setting the background. But this is just my opinion.Thanks,Mark

  14. TR McCoy says:

    Don’t you people have anything better to do? It’s pretty clear to the naked eye that the photo you are critiquing the most has the boy kneeling several feet behind the boar and his arm IS NOT resting on the beast. All of the physics professor, calculation crap is just so much garbage. Get off your lazy asses and check with real hunters that have seen and shot monsters, similar, albeit smaller. This may well be the biggest one ever, but there have been many 600+ pound, 8 foot long ones in the past.If you want to really be useful, focus on the lies of the “evening” news by the big three networks instead of picking on little boys that have far more courage than any of you worthless bastards ever will.TR McCoyOmaha, Nebraska

  15. Mauikimmer says:

    C’mon guys you definately have too much time on your hands.Let the kid have his 15 minutes of fame would ya? Start debunking the goverment and the war, the stuff your readers really want to know…..Aloha!!!!

  16. Lydia Weaver says:

    Not only is the size wrong on this pig but look closely and you will see it is a domesticated farm pig!!!!!It’s body shape is all wrong for a feral boar, tusks too small for that size, WHERE ARE THE TESTICLES???? On a boar that size they should be each the size of a football!!!! LITERALLY!!! I believe it is a barrow, aka neutered farm pig they shot and came up with the hoax. Probably grown up on grandpa’s farm if you ask me… Check into it…get a fish and game person to confirm the “look” of this pig. Check out the HUGE ears….a farm pig characteristic. Ferals have LOOOONG snouts too, not short like this pig. The body shape is all wrong too. Ferals don’t get that obese, they stay lean because they have to forage for a living. That pig is FAT!!!IT IS A FARM PIG, NOT A FERAL!!!Just another piece to the hoax!!!I can send you a picture of a true feral pig or two if you’d like for comparison. I do pot bellied pig rescue and know several people that have ferals as pets too. Thanks for bringing this to light!!!Lydia WeaverMcCaysville, GA

  17. D. Watson says:

    While I may be skeptical about this animal, your analysis of photos 17a and 17b is suspect. I cannot account for the revolver in 17a without seeing the original, but what has happened between the two photos is a slight shift in angle to the 7 o’clock position in 17b. I base this on the horizontal stick over the left shoulder of the man kneeling on the right and the closing of the gap between his bent leg and the animal. Hence, the animal has not moved, but the camera has.

  18. Steven Phillips says:

    The gun used in the “monster pig” story is 18 inches long (10.5″ barrel). Wouldn’t that be a better reference?

  19. karl says:

    Look at the gun in the kids hand, it is the same one on the hogs back.THe relative size of the gun is radically different.

  20. Gerald King says:

    yes, I do agree that there are questions. But it is human nature to question things we do not see with our own eyes. I feel you failed to make a case.You say that the arm is “freakishly thin”, what are you comparing the arm to to make this claim? To me “freakishly thin” would be comparing the thickness of a pencil to the thickness of a zucchini. What is your comparison here?Then you talk about how thick the pig hairs are compared to his arm. Have you ever seen a real pig? When compared to anything they are unusually thick. Am I saying that I agree 100% that they aren’t doctored photos? No, even the media uses photos that are doctored in one form or another.When you compare figure 11 and 12 you can see there are differences in the photos. The position of the boy changed, the position of the camera changed, but the position of the pig appears to stay the same.I don’t know. I know that there has been supposed proof that the pictures of the Flag on the Moon are false, but those have been debunked as well. I guess we’ll never know.

  21. Engineer vs physicist says:

    In the pictures shown, especially your “incredible shrinking boy” (figure 12) he is obviously kneeling down resting his left arm on his left knee (his knee is VISIBLE in the picture). The distances chosen were to include the boy holding the pistol while showing the whole hog.Your analysis is wholly dependent on the assumption that the boy is standing when it is plain that he is not (BTW, a 5’5″ person kneeling is probably less than 4′ tall).A much better method of analysis would be proportionate distances based on the length of the barrel of his gun. Features such as eye to eye distance or chin to crown distance can easily be calculated based on your fig 6 picture since the barrel of the gun is known to be 10.5″ from the manufacturer. Using this method, in your figure eleven, the apparent size of the pig is between 10.5′ and 11.25′(calculated from both the eye to eye distance noted AND the projected length of the barrel resting on the pig). Well short of your physicist 15′ mark. Also,given that the boy is still kneeling behind the pig (guessing 3 feet or so) and that the gun barrel is at an angle into the picture thus shortening it, the 11′ range is a high calculation due to perspective. The projected barrel as well as the eye to eye distance in figure 11 also correspond favorably to the snout to eye distance given by the taxidermist so an estimate of 9′ 4″ is probably valid, as well as the 10′ 7″ snout to hoof measurement.Your physicist is right on the theory here, but as usual, check with an engineer when applying that theory to reality.

  22. Tim says:

    Holy smokes, looks like Figure 17A is the altered photo… by you! I’ve seen better cut and paste work on Ebaums! Will you print a retraction when the skull is examined? Would you want to rest atop a pig for a picture (Hint:they stink)? I don’t blame the Stones and their party for keeping distance from the hog, I doubt that professional misrepresentation was involved. (Yes, they should have had a professional photo done). Is it possible you just don’t like hunting?Becareful when you bend over, your agenda is showing.Tim

  23. Reader says:

    My God, it’s like you want to water everything down to where nothing outside of normal parameters are possible. These are simple and nice people from a great part of the world that have no incentive to make up such a story. Hell, they’re even mounting the head. Once that is done, surely scientists can estimate what the size of the hog really was … which will probably be close to what they originally reported. Why would they lie?

  24. Chris Martin says:

    The problem with your technical analysis calculations are that you are assuming that the 5’5″ boy is standing (Figure 12 calcs) You can see his left knee in the photo that his arm is resting on. A better calculation would be to use the known barrel length of the firearm in question (6.5″) and calculate the length of the boar using that. I get 110.5″ for the length of the pig (using the figure 12 image) which matches their assertion (not the hoof to snout, but the hoof to rear)

  25. Dave says:

    This was a very interesting expose! I did my own computations using the gun barrel from Figure 2 as a reference. Smith and Wesson lists the barrel for the model 500 revolver at 10.5″. Using that as a reference, I came up with a 16 foot hog…very close to Dr. Brandt’s calculation using the boy’s height.

  26. Lloyd says:

    I’m not sure of the exact tractor or loader model, but with a little research it shouldn’t be hard to figure out… You can tell it isn’t a full size farm tractor carrying the hog based on it’s ground clearance and the fact the loader only mounts in the rear (I’m going to guess it’s less than 40hp for sure)… Look at the hydraulic cylinder in particular and compare it to the operators arm, it can’t be any longer than 4 1/2 feet max, plus a mount height slightly higher than the operators leg (I’ll say 42″ to be generous), plus the upward angle of the loader arms, I would guess the loader to be no more than 8′-9′ off the ground… Given that the hog is off the ground and there is a piece of chain hanging down from the bucket about 3′, that hog can’t be any longer than about 6′ max and that’s being generous to the little piggy…

  27. Jeff says:

    how do we know that you guys didn’t doctor the photo to give you and your website more publicity

  28. Shawn says:

    If you look real close at image 15 on this website, you can tell wihtout a doubt that they are standing behind the hog. Look at the shadows on the ground. The father and son have a shadow in front of them. Then look at the hog, there isn’t a shadow. I agree with someone who posted earlier, this pig was hunted on "SHAKE-A-CAN RANCH", where you shake the feed can and they come running. I have read several websites over this hog and now hunters in general are getting bad publicity. I hope the father feels great about what he’s teaching his son. He should get the "Father of the Year Award."

  29. Chris says:

    You mean to tell me to believe some guy from New York over some Alabama boys?Now way.

  30. Angela F-G says:

    LOL, When it comes to pictures like this…i wait for someone to come out and say HOAX before I believe it or not. hey, they had their fun about making the monster pig site and money off it.HOWEVER, HOW they hunted the pig was another story. For this, he is a grave loser!!!!!!!!!!! Shame on you all for not being true hunters. Leave hunting to the pros!!!!!

  31. Skeptic says:

    So, anybody wanna take a guess at how many “I don’t believe your fancy maths” comments little Jamie and his Pa have posted?

  32. Marc says:

    The moment I saw the picture I knew it was a fake. The weights they gave didn’t reflect the size of the pig. A beast of this size weighs in at at least 2,500-3,000 lbs. The place I live in Taiwan has a ‘Fat pig’ festival each year and pigs a little over halve the size of this hog weigh 2,000 lbs … A big hoax, but hey the news channels had at least something to report on … I hope they didn’t believe what they were reporting and had the facts checked …

  33. Rob Nelson says:

    For more generic and obvious proof, also see
    The second picture on the site shows how the shot with his father (and the one of him alone) is absolutely impossible and, therefore, both of them are photoshopped into the picture.
    It shows the manipulation in some different and obvious ways, with a new picture tht was found.
    Note that figure 11 of this site (of the boy by the hog) is –exactly– the same picture as the one with his father, just photoshopped differently.

    Rob Nelson

  34. Bob says:

    The poor kid his stupid father put him through all of this just for money I dont know how that man sleeps at night

  35. bob says:

    Rhonda, you may be correct about the story but this article is not very well done. There are numerous typos and things wrong with this article. The fact that you don’t even seem to notice the boy clearly kneeling and the visible pant leg in the main picture really hurts your believability. If your going to right an article like this you should make sure you know what your talking about first

  36. JANE says:

    Rick, why are you talking like you know these people. You are acting like nobody has tried to pull a hoax before. There have been many alien hoaxs. If you noticed, they are nice people, yet they end up admiting the hoax. How do you know they dont have an incentive. Who said they needed one. I’d do it for the hell of it. Also to those that point out his elbow is on his knee, not the back of the boar. Yes you are right, but does not disprove the critics. THe father says hes close enough to touch the hog. The critics say no, he is too far behind to be able to touch the pig, roughly 7ft. So, according to the critics, there is no way he could have his arm on the boar, and the observation that it isn’t proves nothing except they might be right. i know ive stuck a fish as far in front of me to make it look bigger. I personly dont know if its fake or not, honestly i dont care. Just bored and getting off reading how much these people on both sides are just so sure they are right.

  37. brian says:

    It’s amazing to me that all of the viewers of this site noticed the most scrutinized photo the boy is clearly resting his elbow on his knee. But the “experts” and people of this site haven’t noticed in all of the times they’ve viewed it?!?!?!? Clearly there is a biased agenda here. Congrats on convincing a few readers you’ve “debunked” something that is proabably true. They (the hunter and family) have provided stories and pictures of their feat, this site has provided nothing but made up scenarios on how the pictures “could” be faked. And whats with what I read on that someone from this site called them twice, but used different names in each call? Is that true?

  38. Jeff says:

    There are big pigs and there are fat pigs, then there are small minded people craving their own attention.Get a life, bet you didn’t get any pork sasuages!

  39. Fun for 10 minutes says:

    The only question in my mind is were the photos adjusted. Stop looking at the pig and the boy – look at the tree bark pattern. In figure 11 the bark to the right of the boy is completely different to the bark in figure 2.Both these photos are from so at least one must have been touched up. Trees dont change there bark patterns in the space of seconds!They appeared to take the father out of the original picture shown as the ‘unpublished Photo’ on your site. (probably so there wasn’t any confusion as to which one was the monster pig…)

  40. michael taylor says:

    This is a classic example of a redneck hillbilly Dad trying to pump up his “loser” redneck son by having trick photography used. In the photo of them pulling the hog with the backhoe the pig appears about 200 lbs and a female at that. A pig can’t be some 5 or 6 feet bigger in one photo than in another. What some hillbillies will do to garner fame knows no shame. Also, it is true a “feral” pig would not be as well fed as this pig appears unless he was being hand-fed as well as force fed. It’s like he stumbled upon a buffet the day before he got slaughtered. LOL at the whole scenario.

  41. Kevin says:

    There is something wrong with the tree in the 2 shots if you look at both of them the pig doubles in size in one of them, or the tree gets shorter.

  42. Glenn says:

    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.

  43. C.Daniel says:

    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!

  44. Dan Smithson says:

    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!

  45. Chuck from Arkansas says:

    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.

  46. Alex D. says:

    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: 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”.

  47. Anon says:

    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?

  48. H-Mirage says:

    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….

  49. Summer says:

    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.

  50. CJ says:

    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 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.

  51. David says:

    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.

  52. flo23 says:

    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 heck up your story makes no f…g 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.


  53. Stumblebum says:

    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.

  54. muze says:

    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.

  55. Artemis says:

    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.

  56. Ted says:

    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.

  57. art guerrilla says:

    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 guerrillaaka ann archyeof

  58. Bess says:

    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!

  59. Terre says:

    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.

  60. Gary says:

    **** 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.

  61. Specialist G says:

    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.

  62. RFullenwider says:

    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”.

  63. ted says:

    This scam was revealed by Anniston reporter Brian Strickland who interviewed the orginal owners, the Blissitts. 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.

  64. gigi says:

    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.

  65. JD says:

    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.

  66. Alex D says:

    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:

  67. Dawn says:

    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.

  68. bval says:

    I still can’t tell which one is the pig. They are both fat!

  69. Alex D says:

    Me either.

  70. Alex Dippel says:

    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.

  71. leslie22h says:

    Hey, Fun For 10 Minutes: “Loser” redneck son? How about “Loser redneck Dad.” I have 3 boys of my own that are close to Jamison’s age. They’re not very mature, still rather naiive, and are willing to do anything (outside of domestic chores) I ask of them. If Jamison is anything like my sons, I can assure you that the boy’s father is the real loser. He’s the one who has intentionally taken advantage of his son’s trust and admiration and turned these manipulated photos into a media circus for his own 15 minutes of fame. Someone ought to smack that idiot around. He didn’t break any laws by manipulating those photos. But allowing and encouraging the media feeding frenzy that followed the posting has cast negative public opinion (such as yours) on the boy. I pity poor Jamison and the glaring light he’s been thrust into. He’s just a kid, yet he’ll be trying to live this hoax down for years.

  72. leslie22h says:

    Sorry, “Fun For 10 Minutes.” I should have been addressing Michael Taylor.

  73. TC says:

    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.

  74. Nick C says:

    I was around 5’8″ – 5’9″ at age 11, 5’5″ is not unreasonalbe at all when his dad is over 6 feet.

  75. An Amused Hunter says:

    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.

  76. gustavo says:

    be quite redneck!!!

  77. Dee says:

    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.

  78. B says:

    This whole things is a joke on so many levels. When you’re taking pictures of deer, hogs, fish, etc. you do several things. First you want to center the animal in the picture, take up the whole screen, and take the picture. The hunter gets behind so that the focus is on the game he/she has taken. You vary the angle the pic is taken at based on if you want to get thesurrounding scenery in the picture as well. Nobody tried to trick anybody. They simply took good photos, granted, the way they harvested the animal violated basic hunter ethics. I can’t believe I’ve wasted the last 10 minutes of my life with this.

  79. Rhonda R. Shearer says:

    Mike Stone admitted to me during numerous interviews that he used photo shop on some of the photos. He removed himself from some and a gun from another…this admission folows him publicly stating that they did not do any photo alterations…I have much more to say to you and other doubters that still believe these monster pig photos were legit. Report coming soon…

  80. Bill Coursey says:

    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. Thanks Bill Coursey. BrookBeast son of hogzilla / 1100lb.

  81. Richard lewis says:

    you people have no clue as to what your talking about. Its like a city boy trying to tell me how to run my farm.

  82. Will says:

    did you READ the article? the manipulated the photos in order to make a fat farm big look like a gigantic menacing wild boar, all in order to get famous and make money. how is that not the textbook definition of deception?

  83. Rhonda Roland Shearer says:

    That is true. We appreciate that honesty

  84. Ben Skinner says:

    So, clueless hunter, I suppose you’d know these facts then: It was a .50 cal pistol, so there wasn’t enough grain behind the shot to drive it into the pigs vital organs, so it’s the equivilent of stabbing it in many non-vital places and letting it bleed to death. If it was the right gun to use, why did porky have to chase the pig for three hours, banging away? Go hunting with Cheney.

  85. Francie Griffith says:

    your security thing killed my message, The hog was never near the people. They edited IN their own gun to make it look as if they shot it. Look at the guys shoes and clothes no dirt, but they were hunting???

  86. Jane says:

    Still, even when you look at the correct pictures, and consider how big the thing really was – you have to admit – that’s still a pretty ridiculously large pig.

  87. Rhonda Roland Shearer says:

    All of the photos have the hunters posing way back from the farm pig–creating the optical illusion of a larger size than true life. Since the actual weight of the pig is unverified and evidence provides good reason to doubt the reported size, we have no way to know if "Fred" the farm pig was at or near 1,000 pounds. Look at our photo gallery. Small things look large and big things appear small when photographers apply forced perspective trickery in their images. See photo gallery here.

  88. Rhonda Roland Shearer says:

    To accuse me of creating a fake story when you have no evidence is just plain wrong. The boy’s father admitted in a taped interview with me that he photoshopped the photo you refer to (the group shot) despite telling the media he didn’t use photoshop on any photos.. (He admitted removing the gun).

    The main monster pig image wasn’t photoshopped. Did you even bother to read this article? It was made with a perspective illusion called "forced perspective." I never said this image was photoshopped.

    The accusation that I am against hunting is also false. I grew up fox hunting and hunted 3 or 4 times a year during hunting season in my youth. I am only against unethical hunting practices, such as in this case where a pet pig is gunned down over a three hour period in a canned hunting operation and left to bleed out and suffer.

  89. Rhonda Roland Shearer, editor says:

    Thanks for your comment and for letting us know about the security malfunction!

Comments Terms and Conditions

  • We reserve the right to edit/delete comments which harass, libel, use coarse language and profanity.
  • We moderate comments especially when there is conflict or negativity among commenters.
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *