Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Camping Around Wildlife' started by BiXLL, Oct 25, 2009.
How would you like to be camping, maybe take a walk and come accross this big old guy???
Love them moose! Try canoeing and having to pass one on a narrow. Great pic!
Yikes!!!! That would scare the life out of me! Awesome pix!
sorry...that has to be photoshopped
I don't think so, they are in sync with him coming on the road??? I am pretty sure they do get that big too.
A friend of mine had a similiar experience 2 weeks ago while walking his dog in Rumney, NH. He said it was about 20 feet away in the woods, it gave out a big snort and wandered away. Trust me, they DO get that big, I almost hit his cousin last month while driving at night in Maine.
Looks like a photoshop to me, but who knows. Shadows just look funny/odd...
That is really something! And did anyone notice the squirrel in the tree behind? It was wearing pilot's goggles.
Thats big but i can take him on with one hand tied behind my back
Size and weight
On average, an adult moose stands 1.82.1 m (67 ft) high at the shoulder. Males weigh 380720 kg (8501580 pounds) and females weigh 270360 kg (600800 pounds). The largest of all is the Alaskan subspecies (A. a. gigas), which can stand over 2.1 m (7 ft) at the shoulder, has a span across the antlers of 1.8 m (6 ft) and averages 634.5 kg (1,396 lbs) in males and 478 kg (1,052 lbs) in females. Typically, however, the antlers of a mature specimen are between 1.2 m (3.9 ft) and 1.5 m (4.9 ft). The largest confirmed size for this species was a bull shot at the Yukon River in September 1897 weighing 820 kg (1,800 lb) and was 233 cm (92 in) tall at the shoulder. The Moose of Alaska matches the extinct Irish Elk as the largest deer of all time. Behind only the bisons, the Moose is the second largest land animal in both North America and Europe.
Making an assumption that the pine sapling in the foreground is about 30" high (based on a grass height of 5-6 "...then the shoulder height of the moose is likely about 7', which would fall within Peter's info......
Tough to tell....if it is shopped, it is a darn good one considering the sunlight variations on the body of the critter....
Here is the discussion at Snopes
My DH bought a moose hide at a garage sale last summer. It's HUGE! We use it as a throw on our queen size guest bed. It covers the bed and part of the floor. It is one of the more interesting things he has brought home. Ranks right up there with the 9 banded armadillo on a half log that sits on top of the entertainment center.
Wow thats big, it almost looks prehistoric. Great pictures feels like you are almost there.
that road looks like the wheel tracks are for car/truck, that would make the road width about 12'. That would make that moose about 14' tall..........comin from an avid moose hunter........photoshop
Yes I vote photoshop too.
Yes moose can get huge, I've been within 10 feet of one. But the biggest of the dozens I've seen would be shorter than that one, unless its a new species.
I use Photoshop every day. I copied these images from here and opened them in Photoshop. I have not completed my analysis so I can't say they are fake or real yet but I can say that they have been in a photo editing program. There is evidence of sharpening. That's not a bad thing -- most photos need some sharpening -- but over-doing it can create halos. These are bright or dark bands along edges. These may be what bmb was referring to when s/he said the shadows looked funny or odd. I'll review the images a bit more and then post my opinion.
That moose is about the right size for a fully grown adult male. Up here in Maine, those things kill a trucker or two a year just by being in the road. I've come up on one like that and it was VERY scary when all you can see in your windshield is moose knees!!!!
OK, I've reviewed the images but am unable to arrive at a 100% certain determination about whether that is a real, live mooose or not. The images don't look like composites, i.e., shots of a moose overlayed on shots of a road in the woods. That would be one way to make a moose look so big. But I don't see the common signs of such overlays when I blow the images up to 500% and 600%. On the other hand, all we have to work with is the low-resolution copy (72 ppi) the original poster put on the 'net. A lot of the signs I'd find in a fake high-res shot are lost in a low-res version.
Someone at Snopes suggested that it could be a large fiberglass moose placed on the road and photographed. That's possible but it would be a lot of work for a hoax -- and what would be the payoff? The person who suggested this noted that the legs appear to be in the exact same position in both images. They do and that's very suspicious, but not impossible. We can't be certain because the lower parts of the legs are covered by vegetation in the first shot.
Here are some facts:
1) The images are different sizes, pixel-wise. Moose1 is 637x427 pixels (8.847"x5.931") and is 796.9K in size. Moose2 is 604x405 pixels (8.389"x5.625") and is 716.7K in size. Both are 72 ppi resolution. Assuming that the photographer took two shots in a row with the same camera and assuming that w/he did not have time to change any settings in the menus, we'd expect the images to be of the exact same size. On the other hand, the photographer could have cropped either or both images while preparing them for the 'net, so this size difference is not a damning point.
2) Moose1 is overexposed and Moose2 is not. Again, this doesn't prove anything one way or the other. The photographer would probably not have had time to change settings manually. However, s/he could have been using a full automatic mode and the autoexposure function could have made the change when the camera was moved for the second shot (camera was panned right).
3) The images were sharpened in photo-editing software. This is evident because of the sky and sharpening halos on the edges of the animal and some of the vegetation. When an image is shapened clear areas like sky can take on a slight texture. Since this is undesirable, many photographers mask the sharpening out of the sky. That's simple in a sky with no overlaying objects but these images have trees jutting into the sky. The masking was done on the clear portions of the sky but not in the parts of the sky visible between tree branches.
The sharpening halos on the edges of the moose in both images are consistent with a physical object being present in the scenes. Sharpening halos come from increasing the light-dark differences on edges. All of the lighting angles and shadows on various edges seem to look the way they should in that setting. Once again, this does not prove it's a live moose but it does mitigate against a fake done by multiple image overlays.
Non-photographers don't realize the differences angles and lens types can make in how an image looks. Here's some speculation involving those variables.
1) I think the photogprahper was kneeling or squatting. Shooting upward from a low angle can make something look bigger than it is. These images do not appear to have been shot by someone of normal height standing straight up.
2) Wide-angle lenses can make things look bigger than they are if the lens is fairly close to the subject. These images may have been shot with a lens in the 20-40mm range.
My last point relates to the height of the moose. Once again, we can't be certain because we don't have any factual information about the size of any object in the images. If we did we could make somewhat accurate estimates. (Of course, distortions are introduced by collapsing three dimensional reality into two dimensions. For example, sticks at angles to the lens can look longer or shorter than they really are.) Earlier in this thread someone suggested that the road was probably 12' wide. I suggest that it might be less than that. I've driven a lot of forest and logging roads and many of them were only about 8' wide -- just enough for the truck to pass through.
There is a sapling laying across the road in these images and it is pretty close to perpendicular to the road. So, I made a copy of the sapling, trimmed it to the exact width of the road, i.e., gravel edge to gravel edge, and then rotated it to stand up against the moose. As you can see below, the sapling section is just slightly taller than the moose's shoulder. That's quite reasonable for an 8' sapling and even possible for a 10' sapling. It would make the moose somewhere between 7.5' and 9.5' tall. Perspective should not be a distorting factor because the sapling is laying almost exactly on the same part of the road as the moose is standing.
Here are the two images with the rotated sapling:
Bottom line: I'm not 100% convinced this is a live moose but I can't find a smoking gun that that would prove fraud.
You the man, Tripod!
My goodness that is a most impressive analysis!!
Something about the pic looks off, particularly the second one, but heck what do I know, I only have a point and shoot camera
Really, really impressive unstable tripod!