When thinking abut the Wilderness, which I suppose can be defined as lack of civilisation i.e. people, cars, guns, fast food, shopping malls and anti-psychotic drugs used to control human anxiety etc, does the thought of the Wilderness instill a sense of fear and panic or does it represent a place for contemplation, peace and quiet. When ever a discussion about survival is raised in relation to the wilderness we always hear about dangerous wild animals, weather conditions that can kill, lack of food and water etc. Why is it that a story about someone who is lost or dies in the wilderness gets national media coverage but when someone who has an unfortunate fatal car accident in downtown nowhere barely gets a mention. If for example in the wilderness you happen to see a large cat such as a cougar, are you petrified or do you think how privileged you are to see one of natures great animal predators in the wild? Is spending the few nights out in the wilderness a traumatic experience as described at CNN about the missing Scout but daily use of anti-psychotic drugs not. Apparently the world has passed the point where more people live in urban centres than live in rural settings. Why is so much fear being installed into urban dwellers about the wilderness?

"...Why is so much fear being installed into urban dwellers about the wildness?..."

We are trying to keep them urban dwellers.

As with most any experiential environment present today, nature has many facets. Usually when I enter the wilds, it is with a purpose, that being to enjoy the experience while retaining the ability to survive it. Nature is not all that tranquil, and my feelings about seeing a cougar in the wilds, or a grizzly, have a lot to do with the context in which I encounter them. I've had my hair on the back of my neck raised more than once by an undesirable encounter with big cats, and feel real fortunate that the only bears I've come across have been black bears that were as a'feared of me as I was of them, and politely excused themselves from my proximity without undo encouragement. I've been nearly run over by cow elk and wholly annoyed by a certain squirrel whom I will be all too happy to shoot the next time I see him. Then again, it feels pretty good to wake up in the middle of the big forest to the smell of a fresh pot of coffee coming to a boil.

Likewise, there've been occassions such as while sitting on the #2 express southbound subway through Manhattan while enjoying a fresh bagel and admiring a most beautiful female specimen sitting across from me (dark sunglasses can be a blessing) that nothing in the wilds can compare to. That same ride a day later can be annoying as hell.

It is all situational. Standing in the middle of a still, quiet 40 acre snow field surrounded by forest at 6,000 feet at 3:00 am in the middle of November with a clear sky and a full moon with the temp at about 2 is definitely one of those "Joe vs. the Volcano" moments.

I’m just the opposite, while I’m not scared in a major urban area I am uncomfortable. I find being in the wilderness very comfortable. There have been times in the wilderness I have been threatened by animals, but I have had more confrontations ending with violence while dealing with people, but onto the subject at hand.
One reason people may be scared of the wilderness is when people get comfortable with their surroundings and situations and are scared of change, and after living in a city all there life and hearing horror stories about idiots like the “Bear Man” getting eaten and all the people getting lost and dying it’s no wonder they get scared when confronted with the possibility going into the woods.

I wouldn't know anything about terror inspiring propaganda being sent to urban dwellers. No, not a thing.

No comment.

In all seriousness, it's probably genetic. Humans fear the unknown. And for those of us who consider the idea of being someplace where there is no street lights and no cell phone and no deliveried food and no 911 to be home, the rest of humanity can keep listening to it's genes. We like the peace and quiet.

Re - raydarkhorse. Is the 'Bear Man' anything like the Big Grey man of Ben Macdui? The terror the terror!!




Ben Macdui


The Big Grey Man of Ben Macdui Film

"The Big Grey Man of Ben Macdui"

By Cathy Whitefield

'Ye're no feart, then?' Archie asks as they walk up the track at the back of the Linn of Dee car-park.
'Feart? Why should I be feart?' Duncan looks at Archie in surprise.
'Well – its Ben Macdui we're heading for and the cloud'll be down on the top the day.'
'So what? I've not forgotten how to navigate, even if you have. Come on, man! The forecast's good; we've plenty of time. What's the worry?'
'Ye mean tae tell me ye dinna ken about Am Fear Liath Mor?' Archie shakes his head in disbelief.

Duncan doesn't answer. Archie is full of daft stories. Half the time he makes them up – like that time on Am Fasarinen when he told Duncan the last pinnacle was haunted by a climber who'd fallen to his death - and how the ghost would grab hold of the legs of unsuspecting scramblers and pull them over the edge. Duncan hadn't half-hollered when he'd felt a hand on his ankle - but of course it had just been Archie playing the fool. This Ferly Mor' will be another of Archie's pieces of nonsense.

Duncan decides to ignore him, and he puts his head down and strides out. By this time they've reached the land-rover track to Derry Lodge and are swinging their way down towards the bridge over the Lui. It's early still, and the day is cold and fresh. The clouds are high but, according to the forecast, they will drop later that afternoon. All the more reason to get a move on, and they step out along the gently rising and falling track above the flats of the Lui, past the ruins of the old shielings and along the edge of the new plantations.

From time to time Duncan points out a heron down by the river, or a group of stags high on the hill, but apart from nodding in appreciation, Archie doesn't have much to say - and that's unusual. Duncan's the one who likes to look around at things and think his own thoughts, but he doesn't often get the chance for Archie is aye blethering on. So this silence - although welcome – is uncharacteristic and oddly unsettling and by the time they reach the pinewood at the foot of Glen Derry and are tramping towards Robber's Copse, Duncan is beginning to wonder what it was he'd said. Archie doesn't even manage a grin when Duncan reminds him of one of the stories he'd told at that particular point on a previous occasion.

'Mind the Gold Tree?' he asks, nodding up into Coire Craobh an Oir where a single pine clings to the upper slopes. 'Mind you telling me it was where that Lord Thingumy had buried his gold - and all them plans we made to come back with a couple of spades? You had me going then!'
'Aye - I mind,' Archie says distractedly. Normally he wouldn't have been able to resist the urge to poke fun at Duncan's supposed credulity. Something is definitely wrong, and by the time they've struck off from Glen Luibeg and are headingup towards Sron Riach, Duncan can't stand it any longer.

'What is it then, this 'Ferly Mor'?'

Archie stops abruptly, and Duncan almost runs into him. 'Ye really dinna ken?' Archie asks with a glance up the ridge that leads to the great plateau of Ben Macdui.
'No -I really dinna ken! But see if this is ane of your stories ...'
'It's no my story!' Archie objects. 'You can read it for yourself in the Cairngorm Club Journal. It was Professor Norman Collie that seen it first.'
'Who?' Duncan asks, suspiciously. Archie, when he isn't telling wild stories, is a bit of a name-dropper. 'Friend of yours, is he?'
'He's dead, you daft pillock! You mean you've never heard of Norman Collie? Collies' Ledge?'
'Oh - that Norman Collie! Sure I've heard of him,' says Duncan, who hasn't.


They head on up the track and are high on the shoulder of the Sron by the time Duncan gets the whole story out of Archie. 'Ferly Mor' - Am Fear Liath Mor - is some sort of ghost, by all accounts. Professor Norman Collie first reported it back in 1925, although his encounter had been thirty-five years before. But others have seen or heard it since - and mostly on Ben Macdui - footsteps in the mist, huge footsteps, crunching on gravel or snow; sometimes voices, sometimes music - and there are those who've seen a great grey figure, twenty feet or more tall. But everyone, whatever they've seen or heard, was gripped by an intense feeling of dread and an overwhelming desire to run, to get off the mountain; to get away at any cost.

'You believe all that?' asks Duncan, looking up at the wide scree-strewn slopes of the hill above them. The clouds have definitely dropped and it's colder now.
'Of course not!' Archie scoffs. I'm just telling you so you ken what to be feart of.'
'I'm no feart,' says Duncan stoutly.
'Nor am I', says Archie. But he is, Duncan realises. Archie, leg-puller extraordinaire, is feart.

Time to get his own back, Duncan decides, though he doesn't know how. Not yet. He thinks about it all the way up the ridge, but he still doesn't have any ideas by the time they reach the cliffs above Lochan Uaine and are into the clouds. They have dropped, as forecast, and the track is swathed in a grey mist. 'Maybe we should be getting back,' says Archie suddenly.
'What? We're almost there. We've just to skirt these cliffs and then we'll hit the Etchachan track. Listen - you can hear folk on it.'

The mist magnifies sounds. Duncan can hear a voice in the distance, but then it's blown away by a wind moaning up from the loch far below, and all they can hear are the sounds of wind and water and, once, the harsh complaint of a raven, tumbling on an updraft. Archie jumps at that and looks around wildly.
'What was that?'
'Come on, man. It was only a raven.'

Before long they reach the track and turn west, heading up the shallow slope that will bring them to the summit. Archie hesitates and seems reluctant to go on, but continuing with Duncan is evidently preferable to staying behind on his own, and he follows closely, jumping at each sound, his breathing faster than the gradient warrants, and Duncan realises that Archie is listening to the sound of their own footsteps in the granite gravel, the steady crunch, crunch, crunch. There had been something about footsteps hadn't there? Duncan stops, unshoulders his rucksack, takes a swallow of water from his bottle and, when Archie isn't looking, scoops up a handful of gravel and stuffs it into the pocket of his jacket.

After twenty minutes or so they reach the top; the cairn and triangulation point. They're alone, which is strange, for Duncan is certain he'd heard voices on the track ahead of them, but whoever it was has maybe headed north.

'Right,' says Archie, touching the cairn briefly as he always does. 'We'll get away down now.'
'Already? Come on – let's have a breather, eh? Look-the sun's coming out.'

And sure enough, it's becoming lighter, the mist more luminous. With any luck the clouds will lift and they'll be able to see Braeriach and Cairn Toul across the great gash of the Lairig. But the mist doesn't break up completely, and continues to form on the downwind side of the summit, even though the sun is shining from the south east. Duncan stands up to peer through the forming mist to see if he can make out the distant peaks. But what he sees instead - with an unpleasant loosening of his insides - is a huge grey figure.

'Christ, Archie! What in God's name's that?' 'Bloody hell! It's Am Fear Liath Mor!'
'Christ! What'll we dae?'
'Act casual. Try no tae look feart! Wave at it.'
'Wave at it!?'
'Aye - go on. Wave!'

Duncan raises his arm and waves. Amazingly, the great grey figure waves back. Then he hears a snort behind him and he turns in alarm - only to see that Archie is doubled up, tears of laughter streaming down his face.

'Ye daft pillock!' Archie gasps when he can get his breath back 'It's a Brocken Spectre! An optical illusion. Anyone would think ye'd never seen one before'

Duncan, his heart-rate slowing, raises his other arm and watches the great grey figure do likewise. Archie comes to stand beside him and then there are two grey figures waving at the two of them.

'Well, bugger me! So that's all it is, eh? Just our shadows on the mist?' Duncan is annoyed with himself at being taken in, and even more annoyed with Archie for pretending to be scared just to get Duncan's wind up. He's been had - once again. But then he remembers about the gravel. He slips his hand into his pocket and squeezes the gravel rhythmically in his palm. It grinds together with a crunch, crunch noise - like footsteps in the distance; footsteps that are coming closer.

'What's that?' Archie whispers, grabbing Duncan by the other arm. And then the blood drains from his face. 'Run!' He takes off across the plateau. 'Run, man!' he yells as he disappears. 'But -'


It's too late. Archie is already out of earshot. Duncan begins to laugh. He can hear Archie's footsteps as he runs - great bounding footsteps tearing down the mountainside. But it's strange how the footsteps don't disappear, how they seem to come closer. The mist closes in and it grows colder. His laughter shrivels to a gulp and he feels an overwhelming desire to run, to get off the mountain - at any cost.

'Wait, Archie! Wait for me!' He'd better catch up with him. The daft bugger will run off the cliff if he isn't careful. But it's Duncan who nearly runs off the cliff, tearing down the mountainside as if something is after him. He swerves at the last minute, skids along the edge and runs on and on, not stopping even after he's run out of the mist, not even after he's overtaken Archie on the way down the track. He keeps running until he reaches the bottom of Sron Riach and can see the woods of Robber's Copse ahead. Only then does he stop, wait for Archie who isn't far behind, and catch his breath. Neither of them can speak for quite a while.

'You thought it was yon ghost,' says Duncan, accusingly.
'No, I didnae.'
'Aye, you did,' maintains Duncan as they walk on. After a moment he squeezes the gravel in his pocket again - and has the satisfaction of seeing Archie go white as a sheet. 'Aye, you did,' he says. 'But it was just me all along.' He pulls out his hand and shows him the gravel.
'You ... you ...' Archie's speechless, steam practically coming out of his ears. But then he begins to laugh. 'All right, you bastard, you got me there! I admit it. See when I heard those footsteps ....?' He bends over clutching his ribs, gasping with laughter. 'And see when I saw that third figure in the mist? I dinna ken how you did that, though!'
'Third figure? What third figure?'

Duncan looks at Archie, and Archie, sobering, looks back at him. Then, together, they turn and look back the way they've come, up the Sron, up into the cloud. It's dropping now, a long tendril of fog reaching out down the track, lifting and falling as if it's running in huge bounds. Something darker and denser is forming at the leading edge. Something huge and grey and utterly terrifying....

I feel you should be in awe of your surroundings no matter where you are. Some of the awe-inspiring highlights of my life have been both rural and urban, many in the same day:

* Hiking down into the grand canyon
* Standing on top of Stratosphere in Las Vegas that night
* Jumping off the top of a houseboat on Lake Cumberland in July
* Climbing to the top of a hill that same evening at sunset and discovering a spider building the most intricate web I've ever seen. I watched him for over an hour.
* Scuba diving in the FL keys
* Dinner and dancing on Ocean Drive on South Beach later that night
* Photographing a tornado in rural Kansas
* Kicking back with friends at a cheap motel after the storm chasing is over.

These are just off the top of my head, but you get the idea.

The important part is to feel alive no matter where you are. Fear tries to put out the fire inside you.

I'm thinking "Can I get the camera out & aimed w/o spooking him?"

Uh ... we're talking about a 12-year old boy being lost for three days possibly without water, shelter, or food. That is plenty of time for the unskilled to die from exposure, especially if they'd have been unfortunate enough to have some preciptation in the area.

If you are a parent, try to picture your 12-year old child missing for three days. Being the father of a 12-year old First Class Boy Scout, I will tell you it is a parent's (and scoutmaster's) worst nightmare.

If you are prepared for it, wilderness areas are a delight in many ways.

If you are unprepared for it, wilderness areas can be a death sentence.

I suspect that people who grew up watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, National Geographic, and all the nature shows on the Discovery Channel but never ventured out any further than their local park probably would have developed an un-natural sense of familiarity with the true "great outdoors".

"Un-Natural" in that it isn't based on reality and experience. It's based on vicarious exposure; watching someone else do something while one sits in the airconditioning isn't the same thing as doing it oneself.

Because they feel familiar with the outdoors without having experienced any of the negative consequences they havn't developed the respect and caution that those negative experiences teach, and they end up over estimating their ability and underestimate the forest.

I carry the stuff I do because I've been cold and wet and hungry and lost and didn't like it much.

Having the general public scared of the outdoors isn't a bad thing. It might make some pause to think.

Well put!!!

Actually I wouldn't say you're opposite at all. My point was there are times in either situation when I am at ease and enjoying the view, and then there are times when I am darned glad that I brought along a firearm with me, just in case. I don't think one is any better or worse than the other, they are just different, and subject to change from one moment to the next.

I try to be prepared for the worst, and hope for the best, regardless of the environment.

In that respect, I would conclude you and I, and many others of us here, share a common trait my friend

I think most reading this forum have at one point been cold, wet, hungry and possibly even been lost in the wilderness at some stage, this is what being in the wilderness is about together with the peace and quiet and the feeling of being alive. Make sure not to bring any form of electronic communication as this will ruin the experience. In reality the wilderness is actually not that dangerous. It only feels dangerous because of the lack of comforts of modern day convenience living in todays towns and cities. As regard to the weather in general I am reminded of a quote 'Theres no such thing as bad weather, only bad clothing.' Dressing appropriately for expected weather conditions in the wilderness is not difficult. With regard to the threat posed by animals there is an unnatural fear of wild and even domesticated animals. The terror witnessed in some when a cow goes moooo is actually highly amusing. In reality wild animals generally fall into two separate states. Wild animals who are fearful of man because they are hunted and animals that have no fear of man because they are not. The first group will generally take all possible actions to extract themselves as quickly as possible. This second group generally have not had any interaction with man and although these animals are curious they are generally not a threat unless provoked. Of course there are some exceptions and suitable precautions should be taken. This is borne out by the facts, it is an extremely rare thing to be attacked and killed by a wild animal unless the animal is in a state of fear or believes the individual to be prey. An example, it apparently took the 'Bear man' Timothy Treadwell thirteen years to get himself killed by a grizzly bear, apparently the only recorded death by a bear in the Katmai national park for 85 years. The chances of being killed by a close relative or family friend with a firearm or knife are infinitely more probable with the probability increasing many fold when the assailant has consumed alcohol or drugs whether prescribed or for recreational purposes.
With regard to food and water, again this is not really an issue in the wilderness. As most modern urban dwellers have copious amounts of body fat that would make most pre-hibernating bears jealous, starvation in the wild is not really an issue. Going hungry wares of after a 3-5 days after the body becomes used to the routine. Water is another matter. Careful preparation should be taken in very dry areas such as desert and arctic areas. In general though water is not an issue unless it can be made safe. Just boil it. Surely it is all just common sense. No what is frightening is a 12 year old lad on anti-psychotic medication. Forget about the pharmaceutical companies trying to convince the majority of Americans they are suffering from clinical mental illness so that they can sell their wares. Just get out into the wilderness, dressed appropriately of course. You won't die, well only very tiny number of you will but they would have probably killed themselves anyway because of the fear and anxiety they are being force fed by the news media companies.

Amen!

The media loves to have us all petrified about leaving our homes, no matter what the destination.

Plus, I believe that some folks have no real interest in being outdoors, whether that's camping, hiking, fishing, hunting, etc. These folks must shudder at the thought of sleeping in a tent or having to start a campfire.

Survival of the fittest, I say.

Nature is indifferent to the presence of humans.

My ex is exactly like that. She sanot fathom the idea of sleeping under the stars. She often asked me "why do you like being outside, getting bitten by bugs, rained on, sleeping on the ground?" I usually just told her the alternative was plunking in front of a TV watching mindless drivel. He reply was "whats wrong with that?" Hence, she's an ex now

*giggles* I remember the first time I saw someone, freshly transplanted to my region, freak out when a cow mooed in her general direction. I don't think I helped when I told her that the only the brown and white ones were herbivores, the black and white ones where carnivores. She believed me.

Of course, it was a holstein that mooed at her. (For those that don't know cows, they are black and white.)

It got even better when I told her that cows were scared of deer because the only way to find out if it one of the rare meat eating deer to wait for it to pounce.


I admit it, I was mean as child.

Ignorance. Plain and simple. When I am in the wilderness, I sleep like a baby. Try doing that next to a city street at night!

I sleep well enough most nights regardless of the location, so long as I have my hand near my Glock or My Super Redhawk. This was not the case in Baghdad, though. You don't stop mortar rounds with a .44 mag.

One of the blokes here told me a story about being out in a swag one night and having a pack of hogs come through the camp. He woke up to the gentle nudging/rooting of one of the big sows trying to get into his swag with him apparently. He said he felt lucky she spooked instead of charged him, cuz there was piglets in the mob. He'd have been a lot happier to have had his hands on a gun or a big knife then, too. He said he darned near messed his swag (putting it in milder terms) when he popped his head out and was eye to eye with a 300 kg hog.

I never sleep very heavy anymore, even in my own bed in my home. It must be that silverback thing I reckon.

Humans are the learning animals - we believe and act on what we are taught. Mostly when we are young - though we can learn (just slower) later. By the time I was 12 I had shot much game and had killed, gutted and skinned my first deer. My father was an old-time, upstate New York hunter, trapper and fisherman. Some of my best memories were as a young boy, on an October evening, Dad would say, "Let's go get dinner." We'd each grab a .22 rifle, some bullets (I used his old single-shot Remington) and head to the woods. He would stick a salt and a pepper shaker in his "gunnin' coat." We'd go shoot two or three gray squirrels, skin them out, salt and pepper and jam onto a stick, start a fire and roast supper. I always carried my little sheath knife, a hatchet and the gun. He'd say, "Our great-great-grandfathers built this nation with no more tools than what you have right now - remember that." I remember that it gave me tremendous confidence that has lasted me my whole life! The wilderness has no troubling shadows for someone taught in that way - only provisions for those properly equipped - and you don't need much! It turns out that those experiences have also made me confident in the city. I can't say that the other way round works as well - for the "city" experts I know aren't worth a da*n in the woods!

Ironraven said it: "Humans fear the unknown".

I've taken urban professionals camping and discovered that they stayed awake all night in fear of the coyotes that were periodically yipping. Coyotes! They said they thought they were wolves. (groan, shaking head) Like wolves are any more dangerous than coyotes, which aren't.

The only reason the news media exists is to sell advertising. Car crashes happen multiple times a day. Unless human heads are rolling around an intersection, it isn't news. Real news is animal attacks, lost fools who should have stayed home, and other sundry (preferably gory) events that allow people who wouldn't be caught dead in the wilderness to live vicariously for a few moments without any danger to themselves.

That being said, I'm not fond of bears. Esp garbage-can bears.

Sue

For me, it's peace and quiet.

Like IronRaven, sometimes there are giggles involved. The last time my wife's best friend practically jumped on my body and tried to climb up as high as she could when a little pig ran by behind her was very funny to me. She was practically on my shoulders after she grabbed my flashlight and saw it. The pig was only about the size of a medium to large dog. 75-100 pounds.

She never made it out of the tent again that night. It will be interesting to see how she behaves when we go camping this weekend.

Human heads rolling around an intersection, yeah, that would be interesting

Humans fear the unknown, and sometimes the unexpected. I too think bears are pretty cool, till I had one stalking me (or more correctly, the marshmallows in my backpack). I also like cougars, till I found one sitting outside the radio shack on top of the mountain right outside the only way in or out. The biggest scare I got, though, was that darned black and white kitty cat I called in from across the dark lawn one night. Yep, that put the hustle in me, once I realized who it was that was a waddlin' towards me. Dang near broke my nose trying to get the door closed on that one. Never seen a skunk grin like that before or since.

As for the piglet, what would you have done if there was a 300 kg sow standing behind it? Sometimes fear is legitimate. I ain't met no one yet with a "S" on their chest, though I have met a few that acted like it for a time.

Just wait till one of those jet propelled kitties decides to take a nap under the car.

If you're lucky you spot him before you climb in & start it.

I think skunks KNOW we fear them and they use it for thier advantage and entertainment. I would say that running from a stink-kitty is about the worst idea. THey don't like to be startled so hold still and talk to it, but not call it. The only time I would hustle would be if it was tripping and stumbling, or was forthing and growling. At least that's what I do. And I haven't been sprayed yet, although I probably just jinxed myself.

I should probably pick up a big can of V8 on the way home.

I wished my dog FEARED the skunk in my area. Ok, he's only been skunked once, but once is enough.

By the way, Masengill Douche works wonders removing the smell (buy a case at WalMart). I would lay off the V8 personally; apparently you end up skunked, but smelling like skunked tomatoes.

Justin

Has anyone had or experienced the terrifying feeling felt when being close to a Yeti, Sasquatch (Big foot) type creature. These are completely irrational utterly terrifying feelings of fear and panic whilst camping , walking, hunting on either wooded trails or whilst in the high mountains. Although I have mentioned Am Fear Liath Mòr ' Big Grey Man of Ben Macdui in a joking manner, whilst in the Scottish Mountains between two high desolate plateau mountains called Broad Cairn and Cairn Bannoch during the middle of the night I could here what seemed like very large slow footsteps circling my position. Normally this would not concern me. Some other people just mucking about. Only this time though I was consumed with an absolutely terrifying feeling of irrational fear to the point I could not move. These feelings are described in much the same way by the Professor and much noted climber John Norman Collie. Only the option of running away like the Professor was not an option as it was a night so dark and yet strangely enough the direction I would have most probably taken off in would have taken me over some shear cliffs. Take it from me irrational fear does not normally take hold and yet I am willing to state, like John Norman Collie this event was the most terrifying event I can recall. I now have an open mind about the claims of sightings of such hominid relics from the past such as the Sasquatch and Yeti.

Most humans have forgotten our (true) place on the food chain and don't handle it well when reminded of it.


( I wonder if I really do taste like chicken )

I get irritated whenever I see a bunch of suburban great white hunters swaggering into the woods as if they owned it.

They have no reverence or respect for anything.

Little do they know is that buck they're after can easily kill them.

I remember seeing a video on line of a guy getting worked over by a buck recently. I have to admit I was rooting for the buck.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with hunters and fishermen. Humans have eliminated much of the predator numbers and now we have to take up the slack to keep the prey species numbers in check.

I just wish people would have a little more respect for their prey and hence the world.

( I'll step down off my soapbox now).

Greetings Ladies and Gents,

Wilderness = home. At least in the sense that is where we come from. Just as folks that live in rural settings have a different view then the urbanite, our urbanization and conveniences have made home look foreign to us. Not so many generations ago, the skills common to even a child, today would be attributed to a "survival expert".

I am more interested in learning "woods craft or woodsmanship" then I am survival. Survival to me connotes a struggle to survive, an adversarial relationship with a nature that is actively trying to kill you.
Woods craft is the knowledge base of the old ones. It was sustainable and allowed them to live as part of their environment, not foreign to it.
To my mind this knowledge converts a "survival" situation into just setting up house keeping. And to me studying this stuff, is just plain cool. Regards, Jim

I really like spending time in the outdoors. It's to bad that my education (school) takes so much time, or else I would be outdoors a lot more.

Also I find it to bad that the modern society stands a long way from nature.
Camping is conciderd taking the biggest motor-home they can't afford (other subject), stuffing your home in it and then head through 10 miles of traffic-jams to a overcrowded campsite where they do exactly the things they do at home (sitting down, playing soccer)! Sigh...

Meanwhile they laugh at anyone that does appreciate nature and does go into the outdoors (most of them prepared, some not). 'Are you a cave-man or what!!' And please don't let them see a knife or mulitool on you...


But hey, what does a 17-year old know about this all...

BTW: I noticed that I've been active on this forum for over a year now...jeez, time does go fast when you'r having fun

Take the V8, add a bit of Tabasco, some grain alcohol, and a stick of celery. Then you won't care what the dog smells like.

Since mythical creatures terrify you, what about Nessie?

Re Norad 45

I have personally have never seen Nessie. Many Scientists have tried to debunk the idea of a mythical creature in Loch Ness. One group decided to perform a complete sonar scan of the whole length of the Loch to completely disprove the existence of Nessie. Apparently they failed as many anomalies from the sonar scan began to appear. Of course the sonar anomalies did not prove the existence of Nessie but the whole principle of the performing the sonar scan to disprove the existence of Nessie could not be validated either. Case closed, I'm afraid not.

As for mythical creatures the


Sasquatch is real enough. Some may say it is simply a man in an ape suit but after looking at the video many many times all I can conclude is that the fakery is many many times more sophisticated than even the moon landing video clips and photographs.

We must also remember that although the world is in reality an urban environment for mankind there are still great tracts of land on the planet which are classified as wilderness. New species of animals are constantly being discovered and recorded.
An example a prehistoric fish called the Coelacanth. This goes to show that animals which appear in the fossil record are still around today. Yet when observations of "mythical animals" are made by even well known highly experienced climbers and scientists they are quickly dismissed as suffering from hallucinations. Please research Prof John Norman Collie background, this is not a man whose word is taken likely.
Also if the experience I have described were hallucinations then the hallucinations are all remarkably similar to other climbers and walkers documented experiences in the area of Cairngorms and surrounding mountain areas. Prior to the experience described I personally had not heard of the 'Grey man of Ben Macdui' until I saw a television documentary a few years later. The other disturbing thing about the encounter was that it was not the footsteps circling my position which woke me up, it was the sound of distant musical 'Chimes' or 'Bells'.




The View from Broad Cairn to Cairn Bannoch. I was down in the gully below the Cairn Bannoch in the Centre Right of the Picture. The Cairngorms including Ben Macdui 17 miles away can be seen in the background

Also prior to nightfall I did observe someone on the peak of Cairn Bannoch (this would be about 3/4 of mile away) for about 45 minutes before sunset. What I found strange about this individual was that the individual was not moving around the peak but was motionless and just standing. I got the feeling that this individual was observing myself. I dismissed this individual as another climber. I'm not so sure now it was a another climber.

I am not wishful believer in all things 'Mystical', which is now apparently the vogue with new age urban dwellers. I fully understand the principles of scientific and engineering reasoning.

Ya forgot the dash of Worcestershire sauce

Yup, unfortunately I had already called this one, and he was coming straight at me with purpose, so while I still had enough room and the corner of the house to get between me and the skunk, I beelined it for the front door.

Normally I just stand and watch nature go on by. Sometimes it just don't work out that way, and I don't give curious critters the benefit of the doubt. If that bear wants my marshmallows, he can have em, long as I can go the other direction.

Maybe fear's too strong a word. How about have a healthy respect for it, like you would an oncoming bus. Funny how most cityfolk will know to stay within the lines to avoid getting whomped by the Greyhound, but blunder straight forward unaware of the big pile of steaming ______ they just stepped past.

Do ya think Jeremiah Johnson was scared of that big griz the old man lured into the cabin?

That is precisely the problem with using the example of the Coelacanth to argue for the possible existance of the Sasquatch: the Sasquatch appears nowhere in the fossil record whereas the Coelacanth is well documented. To be sure, there were large primates such as Gigantopithecus, but none of them were bipedal. I don't dismiss sightings of such creatures as hallucinations. To me they seem more along the lines of wishful thinking. Kind of like flying saucers.



I may regret asking this, but are you suggesting that the moon landings were faked?

Re Norad Mythical Beasties.



I have made a study of the Apollo Program and I can say with a high degree of certainty that that the chances of a successful outcome of placing a man on the moon and then returning to earth successfully are very very low indeed. I will not comment on the films and pictures purporting to show US astronauts on the Moon as references about the authenticity to these are already common knowledge with regard to the numerous anomalies.

Many of the scientific papers describing the Apollo program can be viewed at the following links

Apollo Guidance Computer
Apollo General and Miscellaneous Articles

The major scientific and engineering problems of putting a man on the moon do not lie with rockets or space vehicles themselves (although other qualifications to this statement also have to included but I will not go into these to simplify the case against the moon landings). The main problem for the Apollo project was the design and the control of the flight dynamics of the rocketry and space vehicles themselves together with the Navigational component.

The main engineering task of the Apollo project was the implementation of a viable navigational and flight dynamics control system. Many people in America do not understand this. All they saw was a Saturn V booster and Apollo assembly lift off.
The designers at the beginning of the project were highly involved in the successful design of the Polaris missile which used a simple dedicated digital controller to control the simple ballistic trajectory of the missile. Again this approach was similar to the Gemini and Redstone rockets. The overall requirements for the Apollo system were many orders of magnitude more demanding. Again it was decided to go for a digital computer control solution. The main problem was the 1960's technology and lack of established computer software design principles for advanced embedded digital sampled control systems. The integrated circuit had just been proposed by British engineers and samples were becoming available for very simple 2 NOR gate RTL logic. Integrating even a working reliable computer using these ICs was a major technological problem. The reliability problems of the main digital controller eventually caused the deaths of 3 astronauts on the launch pad in 1967 because certain design changes made to the Apollo AGC computer were not passed onto the designers of the pure oxygen life support system. The pure oxygen life support system was utterly essential to the whole design of the Apollo assembly - as replacing this life support system would have required major structural modifications to the space vehicle assemblies the overall mass of the CSM and LEM would have to be substantially increased. This would have led to a complete redesign to the first and second stage Saturn V boosters. This was not an option. At this point the Apollo project was at the point of total failure. Yet within 2 years we were seeing men land on the moon.

This leads me onto the other issues, the size and complexity of the project and the project management. The whole Apollo assembly consisted over 5 million individual engineered parts in which 5 main contractors were employed for each main sub assembly. This whole assembly apparently worked 1st time and worked completely reliably using the untested machine code developed for the Apollo AGC control software. This idea has a very low order of probability. To counter this reliability argument an example - another major engineering project of the time was the British French Concorde. Concorde had only 250,000 engineered parts at yet it took 10 years of development work before it was given a safety certificate which would allow 120 passengers sipping Champagne to fly faster and higher than any US fighter at the time or since.

Major engineering difficulties were also encountered in the navigational systems and flight control systems. The navigational systems were directly coupled to the flight dynamics of the space vehicles i.e the Command Service Module CSM and Lunar Excursion Module LEM. The method of navigation made use of star navigation reference angles in order to obtain a positional fix and directional vector. A three axis gimble gyroscope (a four axis gyroscope would have eliminated the problem of gimble lock – an ever present danger which would have caused the spacecraft to lose all spatial references and therefore all navigational and spacecraft flight dynamic control) was used as the 3-axis reference for the Apollo digital controller. The spacecraft flight dynamics were modeled using a simple 2nd order Laplace Transform control system and yet a very slow sampling digital controller was used (the Apollo AGC computer was used as the intelligent controller). As the flight dynamics were using a very slow sampled system (the computing speed was would have been about the same as a Commodore PET) the z-transform should have been used. This would have led to some serious questions about the whole stability of the flight control system for the spacecraft and the decision to use a 3 axis gimble gyroscope with its inherent problem of gimble lock. Also 3-axis dynamic control of the spacecraft would have been impossible to predict because even in the design stage the modeling the of sloshing movement of internal rocket fuel was abandoned (although this was attempted using an analogue computer). It was probably abandoned because the sloshing movements of the rocket fuel were highly non-linear. Modeling non-linear systems would have been beyond the ability of the control systems engineer of the time due to the fact that digital computer modeling of non linear systems was not widely understood even though they may have been the elite at MIT. There are even problems predicting the Centre of Gravity for the spacecraft. C of G issues were a major headache, predicted values for the C of G were never realized through empirical testing.

Anyway getting back to the problem at hand - the navigation. An analogy would be useful – trying to navigate using the stars. The Apollo navigation would have been like trying to obtain a fix with a sextant on a boat rolling and bobbing around on the sea in a force ten gale (remember this is just a 2 axis problem not 3) with the boat traveling at 25,000 miles per hour and having no horizon (artificial or not) and then trying to get a fix within a few miles of when the star observation was made. The fix would have to be within a few miles as this would mean being burnt up or bouncing of the earth’s atmosphere into space never to be seen again.

I will not even go into the additional problems faced by the Apollo Lunar Excursion Module.

I believe the project was essentially abandoned in 1967 two years before the statement 'this is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' was made, although major contributions to the design of digital computers and digital control theory were advanced.

Hope you did not regret asking!!

And yet these problems, which seem so insurmountable to you, were surmounted by not only the US but eventually also the Soviet Union and the European Space Agency. Or are you suggesting that the various unmanned missions, to the moon and elsewhere, were all faked? After all, they would have experienced the same "navigational problems" faced by the manned missions.

Comparing the Apollo project to the Concorde project is laughable. The Apollo program was driven by what was seen at the time as military necessity. NASA had access to resources that the builders of the Concorde could only dream about. And comparing the Concorde to a "US fighter" is apples and oranges. If you are going to do that, try comparing it to the SR-71 Blackbird. That's real performance.


This statement caught my interest:



Just out of curiosity, what "anomalies" are you referring to in the above statement? (I know, I know, but I just can't help myself...)

Come on Norad. You know what he is talking about. The photos of the astronauts that show the reflection of the grassy knoll in their sun visors.

Oh sorry. Wrong thread.

That was a very technical-sounding discussion, but you lack a certain basic understanding of how the Apollo spacecraft navigated.

For instance, in space, you cannot get a 3D position fix from the stars. You can only get your orientation.

You discuss the shortfalls of the Apollo navigation computer, but fail to realize that the “Apollo Primary Guidance, Navigation and Control System (PGNCS)” was not actually the primary means of navigation. The data gathered from the earth-based tracking network and processed by earth-based computers was much more accurate than the onboard system.

And so on…

But thanks for prompting me to look into it more. I had some questions about how space navigation was done but never looked into it before.

Based on what your saying about the navigation problems we had no worries about ICBM's of that era, actually strikng their targets since the same navigation was used for reentry. The basics of navigation was in place long before man ever made the dream of fight a reality. The day man could determine the path of the stars in the heavens in advance, we had the basics in place

There's a grassy knoll on the moon?

That explains where Alan Sheppard's golfball went(into the rough).

The requirements for the manned mission to the moon are still an order of difficulty greater than the those carried out today either by the US, Soviet Union or the European Space Agency. The complexity of the maneuvers each space vehicle CSM and LEM had to perform would even task the control systems engineer today even with all the computational power available along with a much improved understanding of the software requirements and software tools available. As I described in the previous post, the failure of the Apollo project was due to the limitations of the 1960s technology. Digital Control systems theory for sampled embedded digital controllers were not sufficiently advanced at the time. This is evident in the recently released scientific Apollo papers published at the link on my previous post. During the 1960's computer technology improved exponentially with computers being developed by Eliot Automation for the British Aerospace Corporation TSR2 (1964-65) project being technology far in advance of the Apollo AGC. The Apollo computer specification was born out of the technology five years earlier. They were stuck with this computer because it was embedded completely into the Apollo system. By 1967-69 even commercially available PDPs were more computationally powerful. By the 1974 the HP65 hand held calculators were approaching the computational power of the Apollo AGC. The planetary space probes you mention which have successfully landing on mars etc were not manned, they did not have to return, they did not use star navigation because they did not have to return, they did not require a human life support system, they were designed in the 1970s, their trajectories were essentially ballistic because the Centre of Gravity is easier to define and a lot of them failed. All successful manned space vehicles have operated only in a ballistic Low Earth Orbit below the Van Allen radiation belt.

The comparison between the Concorde Project and the Apollo project was to show that highly complex projects take many years of in flight development testing working systems and finding where the maximums of the flight envelope are. The Apollo project was an order of magnitude more complex but apparently worked first time i.e. 5 million components worked in harmony first time. This has a very low order of engineering probability. Its a bit like building your own computer from the dozen or so parts i.e. motherboard, PSU etc then switching it on and viola, we have lift off!! We must also remember this is before the days of finite element analysis and engineering computer modeling. We must also remember that 5 contractors worked on the major sub assemblies. Even the management of the document control would have been a complete nightmare. This is why the engineers who turned up the voltage on the Apollo AGC probably did not know this would cause a disaster in a pure oxygen environment. I suspect the time constraints on the whole project (political pressure to beat the damned Russians to the moon before the end of the decade), the inevitable screw ups, poor communication between the contractors would have made the whole Apollo project unworkable.

The only aircraft I know off which could intercept a Concorde would be an English Electric (BAC) Lightning (1960s). The pilot of the SR-71 would still be sitting on the ground waiting for the refrigerator connected his space suit to kick in while the ground crew top up the fuel which had leaked out overnight. Official Secret - BAC Lightning versus Locheed SR71 race over the Atlantic - SR71 lost. Something to do with the in flight refueling. The Lightning was being refueled at 65,000 feet by an RAF Victor Tanker, the SR71 was being forced to refuel at 38,000 by a USAF KC135. Guess that made all the difference. Concorde required no in flight refueling as the rock stars sipped champagne at Mach 2.05.



Sorry just found this picture - Superb

NASA could have at least left some stars in the moon landing pictures. But I guess some smart nerdy navigator who has some knowledge of star navigation would have been able to work out where the moon shot pictures were actually taken from. Somewhere just north of Las Vegas maybe!! The computer program Starry Night Beginner is very useful. It allows you to calculate all the star positions at the time and location of the Apollo landings on the moon, maybe NASA can put the stars back.

There any many more anomalies in the NASA photographs, Cross hairs appearing behind equipment in the foreground, incorrect shadow angles (again can be computed using Starry Night Beginner),diverging shadows indicating a close by lighting source not one 93 million miles away, multiple lighting sources, lack of moon dust on the LEM leg pads, lack of blast crater under the rocket motor of the LEM, Flags waving in the wind (but no atmosphere), etc, etc

Hope this helps.

I always seem to find peace in the wilderness. On the other hand one of the guys I work with LOVES to cite the dangers of the wild (and I suppose illuminate his bravery for exposing himself to them). He sees Nature as the Enemy. I don't. It's dangerous and deserves respect, but to hear him speak it's downright out to get us. It's good to be prepared and exercise caution. I don't see nature as something to "battle", however.

I'm not sure why so many people seem to love to focus on the danger.

Seriously, dude. Get help!


-Blast, who weeps for the future

I guess insofar as what is the fastest production aircraft, it depends on how you define fast. If you say that going from point a to point b in the shortest period of time is the fastest, then perhaps the SR-71, under the conditions you cited, did not get there as quickly as the Lightning. On the other hand, top speed would definitely go to the SR-71. I would say it is about twice as fast as the Lightning ever was, from a top velocity perspective. Unfortunately I cannot say what the top velocity for either craft is, because that is still classified.

Of course, the world record for maximum velocity of a production craft is, or at least was last time I looked, the Challenger, which clocked an impressive Mach 26 at altitude. That is unclassified.

I reckon the only way to convince a skeptic is to send them there and let them see for themselves. According to the mission logs, there was plenty of equipment left behind. Then again, if you went and discovered the truth, one way or another, there would be plenty of skeptics out there who would say you never went, that it is just another hoax.

That is a paradox.

This is too easy. No stars visible in the photos? That's because the camera speed is set fast. Cross hairs appearing behind equipment in the foreground? That's what happens when you photograph a white object using a black crosshair and overexpose it. Incorrect/diverging shadow angles? A matter of perspective. Shadow angles can look different at different distances. Lack of moon dust on the LEM leg pads? Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm sure there was plenty prior to dustoff (sorry about the pun). Lack of blast crater? That's because in a vacuum the blast effects are spread out much wider than in atmosphere. Flags waving in the wind (but no atmosphere)? There is no wind on the moon. The flag was mounted on a vertical pole and the top connected by a horizontal pole. When the astronaut moves it, it "waves".

You seem unaware that conditions are very different on the moon. Fortunately the NASA engineers were well aware of that fact. That allowed the USA to achieve the preeminent peacetime achievment of the 20th Century. May I suggest the following website:
Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy.
He is a physicist who cuts through the moon hoax nonsense with clear, easy to understand language.

The Concorde was a beautiful achievement, but I guess I'm just not as impressed with champaigne as you are. In a New York to Los Angeles race I'd take a stretch limo over a Top Fuel Dragster as well, but I'd never mistake the limo's rather pedestrian velocities for "performance". Same with the Concorde vs. the SR-71.

Re Norad - Mythical Creatures

Again thanks for the response but I think that we may be boring others on the forum but I am enjoying the debate.

The main reason I did not initially want to get into a debate about the NASA photographs is because of the Photoshop effect. The original source negatives are unavailable for scrutiny by independent examination. What we have to go on are the officially images posted on the website at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ image library.

I have looked through all the carefully edited photographs and what is striking is the lack of information which would place the astronauts at the following landing site

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.html
Landing site: Sea of Tranquility.
Landing Coordinates: 0.67409 degrees North, 23.47298 degrees East
(Source: National Space Science Data Center)

that is except for the possibility of the photo shown at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

see notes below from NASA website.

In addition to investigations of the intrinsic characteristics of the Spot, it is necessary to verify that geometric factors are all correct. A check of Starry Night shows that, at 0414 UT on 21 July 1969, Earth was 59.5 degrees above the western Tranquility horizon at an azimuth of 270.6. The sun was 14.3 degrees above eastern horizon at an azimuth of about 88.1 degrees. Consequently, an image of Earth, if any, would be near the line of Buzz's shadow at a place on the visor where a vertical tangent to the visor surface is tilted back about 30 degrees. A labeled detail from AS11-40-5875 ( 74k ) shows that this condition is met near the top of the visor.

The information in the notes is actually quite revealing. It confirms the starry night analysis I performed more than 2 years ago and now NASA it appears have accepted the Starry Night model. But of course this information is used to counter the argument put forward by conspiracy theory hoax believers (These people are generally regarded as sad lonely liberals who would believe anything, which would suit their own views of the world).

I have sampled enough of the officially released photographs and have performed the following analysis. Using Photoshop I have inverted the image to get back to a Negative state. I have then tried to detect any information in the photograph in the Blackened Sky (now completely white). Apart from one or two multi pixel anomalies (usually about 2-8 pixels in size) there is no data in the black sky. RGB gives 255,255,255 over the whole sky views for all the released photographs. I can only assume this data has been deliberately removed by NASA. This has ensured that no star referencing can be made which could be at odds to the Starry Night model. The stars were removed many years ago, a sudden re-appearance would cause too many problems today. Any photographer who has scanned old negatives knows that the main problem is noise, dirt and fading. There is no noise on black sky areas. As for Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy pages (Phil Plait was a NASA employee at one point, I was aware of this site prior to your link) has done a fine job of presenting information to counter the hoax theory using simplified language. I believe that Phil Plait is an astronomer. He is not an engineer, I suspect he knows very little about control systems engineering and has some physics knowledge. His attitude is extremely condescending. The first issue of stars not being captured on film is dubious so say the least. This would lead into a technical discussion about the camera qualities i.e. single or multipoint exposure metering, lens qualities etc and the film stock of the period in 1969. Apparently there also is no fogging of the film due to radiation effects.

70mm Hasselblad Electric Camera (this was a commercially available camera)
The standard lens is an 80 mm f/2.8, and 250 mm f/4 and 500 mm f/8 telephoto lenses are provided for photography of distant objects
Viewing angle of 38 degrees by 38 degrees for the 80 mm and 13degrees by 13 degrees for the 250mm lens.

To summarize, If some photographs of the stars using a slightly longer exposure (the view of the stars from the moon would have been utterly spectacular - you can ask Phil Plait about that one) had been deliberately attempted by the astronauts then this whole issue would have been settled many, many years ago. I am sure someone at NASA would have realized this so as to prove the astronauts were actually there. These star mapping photos do not appear in the official record.

I have also attempted to look at the sun shadow angles, this is difficult to do with the NASA photographs, but in all the photographs were I have attempted this the sun angles are always higher than they should be for the Astronauts EVA

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5872HR.jpg
Sun angle is measured at 31 to 32 degrees + or - 7 degrees computed from the Solar Wind collector device.

We must remember that

EVA at begins At 2:56 UTC on July 21 Suns angular seperation from horizon is 13 degrees 40 minutes (data obtained from Starry Night)
EVA ends after 2hrs 31 minute which would be 05:27 UTC suns angular separation from horizon is 14 degrees 54 minutes (data obtained from Starry Night)

Therefore the sun angles in the NASA photographic Library are at least one standard deviation statistically from the Starry Night Model.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5917HR.jpg no dust in the LEM leg pad, this should be covered in dust no matter what Phil Plait says. Try standing a few feet away behind one engine of a Lear jet. That apparently only has a few pounds/square inch static pressure also.

The main problem is that electronic imaging, can be so deceptive. It can allow the complete manipulation of the truth.

Do you like my amplifier - It is a mythical creature - it only exists in the imagination of my computer - its extraordinary how computers have advanced since the Apollo AGC.



Can you see me in the reflection of the first valve - Only Joking.

I can agree with that but now I fear we are simply talking past each other, so I'm going to let it drop. Now I'm off to get a nice refreshing glass of Tang.

Perhaps this (hijacked) topic would be better served here?

Conspiracy Theory Forum

Search that forum....the Apollo horse has been flogged....and FLOGGED there.

you raise some excellent point brother.

when i see a large cat, i would be both privlidged and quite intimidated.