Tiger

[snousle]

dashing has been an enormous time sink.

This sure caught my eye:



Is it for real? I had no idea they were that big. Wikipedia says they grow up to 660 pounds, and that "up to 12,000 tigers are being kept as private pets in the US". Dang.

I would really like to pet one sometime. Had no idea it was possible to do so but I bet there's a way to make it happen.

Comments

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

At a watermelon festival here in tx, they had tiger cubs kids could pose for pictures with. Very surreal stuff, tho there was no sign of mama or daddy

[barbarian-rat.livejournal.com]

Wow. BIG KITTY

[albear-garni.livejournal.com]

I think you could start by stroking his belly.... ;-)

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

And we all know where petting leads...

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

Beautiful cat! The question I have is how many of those 12,000 are simply kept in cages, and how many have been raised to be (reasonably) safe to get close to, like that one?

For me, I want to pet a live grizzly bear; I'm no idiot, it would have to be a bear like the ones Doug Seus raises and trains to work in TV and movies that is used to being around humans.

I can easily imagine in either case the animal might only be safe to approach if accompanied by a human the animal is "bonded" to.

[p0lecat.livejournal.com]

I say Nice Photoshop!

[furr-a-bruin.livejournal.com]

After seeing the video of Jupiter the Lion and the woman who rescued him from an abusive situation, I really don't find this unrealistic.

[broduke2000.livejournal.com]

AWWWW!

[h0gwash.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of the scene in Red Dragon, the Michael Mann produced prequel to Silence of the Lambs, where the creepy Hannibal-type character takes his date- a blind woman- to pet a sedated tiger. Of course she fondles its mouth and teeth like Little Red Riding Hood checking out the wolf in Granny's bed- "Oh, my, what BIG TEETH YOU HAVE..."

[snousle.livejournal.com]

Is there something about it that gives it away as being altered?

[flamedryad.livejournal.com]

awww such a sweet kitty

[fogbear.livejournal.com]

The shadow of the tiger and the man aren't right.

[come-to-think.livejournal.com]

One might hope that the man would be inspired by the example of all that fur.

[p0lecat.livejournal.com]

The feet of the guy. They are fading into the grass not sinking into it. Also look at his right leg. There is a define shadow of his shorts on it when that side of his hole body is in the shadow of the tree.

[p0lecat.livejournal.com]

And if you were to blow up the pic, ALL the mistakes start showing there faces! perfect example is around his right hand and how the background of the original pic that he was cut from is still there. Blow it up to about 450%

[p0lecat.livejournal.com]

And finally.... A pic of the same tiger and a different keeper but this time you well see how small the cat is. Check the face markings to identify the cat as the same.

[h0gwash.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure this is the same tiger, I'm not sure the first photo is a Photochop. The dappled shadow effects are not inconsistent with objects sitting at the 'pneumbra' of a tree's shadow. The edge of the tiger's and keeper's feet at the grass seem consistent to me, and some tigers really get that big. The keeper can also be short and fat. If the tiger was standing and not sitting, the keeper would have to reach up to feed the milk which you see in other tiger/keeper/milk pics.

I've done lots of photochoping for, um, "personal interest reasons", and in a case where you're shrinking an object in the pic, you've got to replace background pixels. In the case of a 'grass and foilage' background, you would leave a subtle but distinctive scar, which is not apparent.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

The face markings are similar but not identical, and the stripes on the abdomen of tiger #2 are much thicker.



I remain unconvinced about photoshopping. The main inconsistency I see is that the tops of the shadows are not touching - but then, it is possible that the photo is unmodified and the tongue of the tiger is not actually touching the man's face in the first place.

Photoshop alterations can be hard to distinguish from jpeg compression artifacts. I ran a version of this through error level analysis and didn't find any smoking guns.

[snousle.livejournal.com]

OK, I found the source. DEFINITELY REAL:

[snousle.livejournal.com]

OK, I believe both these photos are from the Australia Zoo, which has a number of tigers that are siblings.

Photostream you probably got this from:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/vindalou/903616645/

Still working on finding keeper #1. This is fun!

[snousle.livejournal.com]

OK, none of the Australian Zoo tigers are over 300 lbs, so I conclude that this is indeed a modified picture.