Quit your false accusations. You are totally full of it. No one on this blog *ever* claimed it was a SCUD. The SCUD hypothesis was always just that; a *HYPOTHESIS*. If you don’t know what that means, look it up in a dictionary.

This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. I (and others) had doubts about the “meteor” explanation. The BA posted about the “SCUD” explanation. That answered some of the questions. (Residual fuel could have explained the illnesses, warhead or unburned fuel (e.g. from an early engine cut-off) could explain the crater.)

But it certainly wasn’t conclusive. No one ever said “Case closed. It was a SCUD.”

You seem to think that if someone doesn’t accept that it was a meteor, they must believe it was a SCUD. That’s idiotic. There is such a thing as reserving judgement and awaiting more evidence. That’s what a skeptic does in the face of conflicting or insufficient evidence.

Making arguments one way or the other is *not* the same thing as coming to a conclusion. It is just a method of examining the evidence and determining what we do and do not know so far.

Please go to the following website…

http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/newsdetail.php?id=45&keyword=monster%20pig

…and tell me how it wasn’t intentional. Or perhaps explain why the boy changes size, while the hog remains the same. Which picture accurately represents the size difference between the boy and the hog?

Back on topic…all I’m saying is that people can be fooled by perspective, and that I would like to see a picture of this crater that removes all doubt as to it’s size.

RAF said:
> Surprising though that the National Geographic would lend it’s “name” to a picture obviously meant to deceive.

What is your evidence that picture was intended to deceive, rather than intended to show the shape and texture of the crater? The people in the background could have been incidental to the photographer’s intent. Perhaps the photographer snapped several photos, some of the crater, some to show background, and then the website editor picked one based upon aesthetics, or random coin flip, rather than an attempt to clearly or unclearly depict the size.

But yeah, that photo is misleading if you are intepreting the people as being on the rim. Perspective is important in interpretation. I, too, would like to see a good size comparison photo.

To me, Phil clarified the evidence it was a meteorite hit, and you then asked if the hole shape and size were still wrong. Well, he already said they seemed wrong but the topography of the ground could be a factor contributing to that appearance. So question already answered. Your point was?

RAF said:
> You think that positioning the boy in such a way as to make the “hogzilla” look bigger was NOT deliberate? It was most certainly a hoax.

A couple of points. First, “Hogzilla” was shot by an adult. There was a second huge hog shot by an 11 year old boy, but that was not “Hogzilla”.

Second, hoax is a loaded word that is not strictly appropriate. A “hoax” is an intentional fabrication or distortion. Facts for Hogzilla.

1. There was a real hog. It was very large. (Size clarified later.)

2. The photos shown are real photos, not photoshopped.

3. Hogzilla was buried after the photo was taken.

4. Emails circulated, some of which characterized Hogzilla as being 12 ft long and weighing 1000 lbs. It is unclear where these specific claims came from – the person who shot the hog, or people passing the story along.

5. National Geographic (”Is It Real?”) contacted the parties and they went and dug up the Hogzilla carcass. They confirmed that it was large, but that it was about 7 1/2 feet long and estimated about 800 lbs, not 12 ft and 1000 lbs. (Estimated because the head was already removed and the carcass had been in the ground for almost a year.)

6. The guy who shot it and the property owner estimated the weight in the field on their own. 1000 lbs seemed reasonable to them, was probably high, but 800lbs is a good chunk of 1000, and depends on how fine-grained your estimate is. For eyeballing in the field by untrained estimators, is it in the ballpark? YMMV.

7. The email describing Hogzilla as 12 ft long is clearly a third party describing the picture, not the first-hand account of the shooter. The estimate of length is poorly done and downright wrong. It is possible the person was intentionlly playing up the length, but that does not show connection back to the original shooter.

So describing Hogzilla as a “hoax” is suggesting that the shooter, the one claiming to have killed the beast, was intentionally misrepresenting the size. There is not enough evidence to show that. Although it is possible (even probable) there was some “fish story” involved, there isn’t proof of that. It remains “I killed the biggest wild (feral) hog I’ve ever seen, and here’s a picture.” Other people exaggerating and misrepresenting what is clearly shown in the picture is something else not attributable to the photo owner.

Regarding the boy who shot the second hog, there was indeed a large hog, it really was 9 ft long and 1000 lbs, as confirmed by the guy who sold it to the hunting preserve owner where the kid shot it. No hoax there, either. What you have is a kid posing behind the huge carcass of his kill, with some slight distortion from perspective. But not much, and not intentional, just what happens when you try to pose with a large item and the best place to stand is behind it.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/hogzilla.asp