I've included a URL, hopefully it is easy enough to follow, but just in case: http://selever.freeshell.org/projects/rand/

Back on April 4th of 2007, I laborously researched this, and and emailed whoever it was that posted it. I'm disappointed that the status hasn't been changed at least to reflect some ambiguity. I am happy to notice that many of my arguments have been used since I did the research.

I'd like to hear from Dave's brother Erik, though. I wouldn't mind being convinced. : )

I must comment on these photos. They are infact real pictures and not altered ones they were taken here in Juneau, Alaska by a friend of my parents. Amazing that they have been around so much and the stories that have followed.

Nice job by Nic also discovering the photos were edited using Photoshop. Poor attempt by several posters in between to say they are real. I think it's fine if others want to believe this but don't try to convince those of us that enjoy engineering and investigation.

OK so this Nic is full of S***. I have been to the house where these were taken and know the woman who took them. They ARE real!

So, now we just get swearing and no more proof? Why did the photographer use Photoshop? Where is the photographer? Why is it always, a "friend of someone I know" scenario? I don't see what about Nic's argument appears to be incorrect.

I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS THREAD FOR WELL OVER A YEAR AND HV VASCILLATED BTWN TRUE AND FAKE. I NOW HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PICS ARE MOST LIKELY FAKE, FOR THESE REASONS:

1)READ WHAT NIC HAS TO SAY IN HIS MSG OF 7-27-07. HE'S GOT A LINK, THAT AFTER READING IT, I'M CONVINCED THAT THERE'S AT LEAST SOME 'PHOTOSHOPPING' DONE TO THE PICS.

http://selever.freeshell.org/projects/rand/

2) APRIL FOOL'S DAY HS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO W/WHEN THIS HIT THE INTERNET. IT'S BEEN OUT THERE AT LEAST SINCE 2005 & I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR APRIL.

3) NO ONE HS COME FORWARD WITH THE NAME AND/OR LOCATION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER - WE'VE ONLY HEARD FROM PPL W/VAGUE INFO IN REFERENCE TO NEIGHBORS, RELATIVES, FRIENDS AND SUCH FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT LOCATIONS - BOTH IN CANADA AND THE US. IF YOU'RE GOT CONCRETE INFO, LET US HAVE IT - PLEASE.

Ok, instead of offering "proof" that these are fakes by noting that they have been edited in an image editor, why don't you all find some proof that these are fakes by finding the original pictures this bear came from. Somewhere out there, if these are indeed fakes, will be pictures of a bear climbing, hanging from, and chewing on something, correct? Find the pics this bear was cut from, then you'll have proof.

I am a photographer, film and digital, and I edit many of my photos in Photoshop, Fireworks, IrfanView, and others. The fact that the file was "Edited in PhotoShop" means nothing. What if it was a film photo, and they scanned it using PhotoShop? What if they have a PC-based photo album? There are many reasons why these images could have been opened in Elements, and the person who made this claim on that other website himself stated that he could find no pixel-based editing in the images. He beats his own argument.

Maybe they were cropped to reduce file size? Enlarged? These are all -edits-, and ones that no one would find fishy.

Why would anyone bother to fake this, anyway? It's no shark-jumping-up-and-biting-a-helicopter...

Well, If you are going to make a spectacular claim then you need to be able to prove it. Secondly, why can't anyone name the photographer? Additionally, people like to make stuff up, that's why they would fake it. Lastly, it just looks fake.

If you've had a bear come into your yard and destroy your bird feeders, it's not a spectacular claim. I have had three feeders and two poles dragged off into the woods and destroyed by bear(s). Not quite as spiffy as climbing a rope, but the circus bears can do it, so I'd imagine a hungry wild bear could.

Second, for the last century, photographs WERE proof. So if this is a person, say, in their 30's or older, he would consider the picture proof.

And why do we not know who the photographer is? This is the Internet. A 60-year-old man could have sent the picture to his grandson, who thought it was cool enough to forward to his friends, who then posted it somewhere. That original guy, who MIGHT sell his old toys on eBay or something, has no idea we exist, nor does he care enough to search for it, because he saw it and took the pictures.

I feel sorry for you people growing up in the fledgling Internet generation, because you assume the worst of people. Speaking as someone who does graphics work, this picture would require so much time and effort, and be viewed by such a small audience, that faking would be pointless.

"Haha, I'm going to pull one over on the birding community! This will be legendary! A bear eating bird seed!"

We have spent more time debating the authenticity of these photos than the original photographer spent telling the story of the bear eating his seed.

You feel sorry for me? Feel sorry for yourself that you need to be so judgmental when someone's opinions doesn't match your own. I am not saying there is anything wrong with believing what you are seeing, merely stating why I don't believe it. You have no idea how old I am or anything about me for that matter. I am not a young person and do not assume the worst about anyone, I am a forensic analyst and computer crime investigator and can spot fakes fairly quickly. For example this was easy since, in this very thread, three different people from two different places claim the ability to authenticate two separate stories. As for motive, I have no idea why someone would do this and do not care, I don't have to establish that. Best guess would be some kid did it to show his/her friends what they were capable of and the friends started the hoax. Innocuous for sure.

If you really do graphics work, then you know this would not require that much time or effort to perform a little photochopping for your friends. It's a simple layering of two separate pictures.

"Captain Dude"... the "forensic analyst and computer crime investigator"... says we should believe him because, well, he's "Captain Dude" "forensic analyst" and because three people in this thread claim to be able to authenticate this story from two different places. What kind of forensic work and crime fighting is *that*? Like Bellicose, I also spend a lot of time manipulating images in graphic design. Bellicose is right, there would be way too much work involved in this to manipulate four color photos like that. And for what? It's an amusing series of photos but not spectacular. "Captain Dude" has obviously never done any photo manipulation. This would not be a "simple layering of two separate pictures."

There has been discussion about the weight of the bear on the rope. Since I don't see any scales or anything to scale the bear other than the feeder, I have no idea just how big the bear is. It could be a juvenile.

It appears to me that the first image was shot from a different angle than photos 2-4 which is why the tree in the first frame, from which the bear is launching itself onto the rope, is out of the frame. The photographer appears to have moved left and lower below the feeder. The branches and leaves we see on the left in the first photo are moved over to the right side and above the photographer in photos 2-4. I agree, also, with what Bellicose says about editing... anything could be the reason. In addition to re-sizing, the photographer (or someone else) could have lightened the images. It doesn't make them fake.

For the person who thinks this looks like a bird house rather than a feeder... you obviously aren't into feeding birds.

"...because three people in this thread claim to be able to authenticate this story from two different places. What kind of forensic work and crime fighting is *that*?" It means there is no consistency from the people claiming that this is real. That's called corroboration. Also if three people all say it's true but all three stories are different,locations/photographer, how can any one of those stories be true?

"Also if three people all say it's true but all three stories are different,locations/photographer, how can any one of those stories be true?"

You're kidding, right?

Think about it. It's really not that difficult. Put those "crime fighting skills" you claim to have to work and figure it out.

I'm not kidding, instead of chiding, just tell us.

nice pictures...I love birds...las year I saw one in a park on germany, it was so beautifull but I dont understand the real meaning of the post.
Somebody can explain me?