Comments on: Giant Salmon Photo

By: Brian Reily

Brian Reily — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:54:57 +0000

Though I must agree…. that IS an outrageously large fish.

By: Brian Reily

Brian Reily — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:53:04 +0000

DARHOP responds: November 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Why would the States Dept. of Fish & Game fake a photo of a Salmon…?

Not only do i agree, I’ll go one step further on that…

Why would the States Dept. of Fish & Game fake a photo of a DEAD Salmon…?

Note that the eye has already sunk in and began to rot.

By: doones

doones — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:23 +0000

Nobody can hold 85# at arms length as in the picture.FAKE!

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:09:59 +0000

BTW, as frequent readers here know, I most often embed the sources of the stories within the postings, for reasons of flow. So, since the first appearance of this was noted thusly, you might find other stories about this popping up all over now.

Also, I embedded the link for pangs’ contributed article too, above.

Cryptomundo just looks better without raw, open urls, folks. Nothing sinister, merely stylistic.

By: Samson77

Samson77 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:20:44 +0000

100% real.

By: maslo63

maslo63 — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 03:03:23 +0000

To those unfamiliar with the species I can see why this may appear fake but these salmon do get that big, these aren’t the only pictures and this isn’t the only specimen displaying their immense size.
TropicalWolf; more proof then a photograph? This fish was found and photographed by government officials. Who would argue with them? Logic would tell me that if government officials were going to fake something they might as well make it worth the effort, especially given how much is being put on stake by doing it.
A simple google image search for record chinook (or king) salmon will yield a large amount of photographs of fish nearly as large, just as large or larger then the one pictured above. View them and you’ll see that this extraordinary event is not that extraordinary and not something that would be worth faking.

By: pangs

pangs — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:44:22 +0000

Another photo here.

By: ksu4

ksu4 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:35:12 +0000

I’ve personally seen King salmon in the 40-70# range (in Alaska). They are that big. I can’t vouch for the authenticity of these particular photos, but they certainly look reasonable to me.

By: tropicalwolf

tropicalwolf — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:50:53 +0000

If you are going to fake a photo, logic says you DON’T want to make it a “record-breaker” or else people will demand more solid proof than a photo in this day and age. I won’t say this one is definitely faked, but there is something not right about it. Both pictures have that classic “fish-pushed-forward” / false perspective look to them. But who knows, it could be real.

By: maslo63

maslo63 — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 19:54:55 +0000

It is not fake. If someone was going to make a fake salmon photo why not make it larger then the official record? Anyway, there is a different photograph about the same fish. [Added above.- LC]