Well done, beautiful bird.

Joe, you did good man, especially for windy conditions.

You will be surprised at how helpful Hoggers are and the extent which some will go to provide you with information.

Not too impressed with the colors but the way they shaped the panel with a nice freehand arc, uh really not too impressed with that either.

Just wanted to make sure Lucy is the right fossil and not some imposter. Lucy probably isn’t a fraud. She probably really is a fossil. The documentary about her was fraudulent. There were 6 points where they defrauded viewers. They made a big deal about Lucy having fingernails instead of claws like others in the animal kingdom. Within an hour after the close of the movie a group in California sent out an email encouraging viewers to not be deceived. All primates have fingernails - always have. They continue to be primates just like they always have been. It has been too many years since the movie and I forgot the other five points. That doesn’t matter - the movie is irrelevant. One evening about a month after the airing of the Lucy movie I signed on to the internet. For some reason I happened to notice an inconspicuous blurb and almost laughed out loud when reading it. The makers of the Lucy movie made a retraction. Actually they made six retractions. They retracted every point they made that the California group noted. It was as if they got the notice from the California group and found out they were wrong. Except they knew all along they were wrong. They deliberately deceive and later make retractions so if they are called on the ‘mistakes’ they can make assurances that they corrected those ‘errors’. This happens way too often.

I do know that already. That’s why I know it is silly to think the Grand Canyon was built up over millions of years but the only erosion was what occurred parallel to the river channel. Then after the current top layer was formed - then - erosion began cutting smaller channels perpendicular to the river channel.

Wasn’t?

Isn’t Lucy the subject of a documentary on ABC several years ago?

I used the tires angle to keep from offending but you don’t accept it so let me remind you that you too are getting old and wearing out. The argument does apply to life.

The evolution story goes that as the river flowed down it’s channel new strata was deposited taking millions of years for each layer but no erosion took place until the last layer was complete - no erosion that is except for the erosion that kept the river at the bottom of the canyon. Also much of the sediment forming those layers is believed to have come from the area around what is now Pennsylvania. Evolutionists say that material moved to Arizona via a river system. No such river system exists and no evidence of such a river ever existed. Near the canyon is rock strata that is folded in an L shape. Since rocks don’t bend it is obvious this strata formed very quickly - no over millions of years.

Okay I stand corrected; many fossils are just a bone or tooth. The fossils referred to are those showing more complete ‘critters’ and there are none that demonstrate evolution. With millions of critters alive on earth today there should be ancestors by the millions that are less complex and there should be some fossils of those critters. There are none.

As for the Australopithecus - he/she is just following behind the Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man - a lineup of former missing links. The difference being that the old timers had the decency to tag their critters with names that are easier to spell. Someday this youngster will fall off the world stage like all the rest.

Here’s a question for you. Do you believe in the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Do the tires on your car regenerate or do they wear out and you have to replace them? By the way, I know the answer. Why is all of creation in the grip of that Second Law except for evolution?

The Grand Canyon is made of multiple layers of sediment. Evolution says those layers took millions of years per each to form. How did those layers not erode during those millions of years? The top of the canyon has erosion showing where rain water and snowmelt have carried material over the side into the river below. There is no erosion between those layers. How did that happen?

Perhaps Tod Wood says radiocarbon dating needs to be recalibrated because it is not dependable. Rocks of known origin and age have tested as ancient rocks. If currently accepted dating methods can’t get it right on a 30 year old rock from a relatively recent volcano why would you trust it with a rock of unknown age?

I assume you believe in evolution. Well if evolution is your thing then show us the fossil. The fact is you can’t show us ‘the’ fossil because the missing link is still missing. Charles Darwin lamented the fact that the fossil record did not support his theory but claimed to believe that as the fossil record expanded it would all line up. Well the record has grown exponentially and not one single fossil demonstrates evolution. Every fossil is of a complex, fully functioning critter.

Thank you Regis for the straight and concise answer. It seems that a 5Dsr would provide the biggest bang for the buck. You certainly have nailed wildlife photography and the 5Dsr is no doubt great for landscape as well.

Regis, your pictures are always spectacular. Would you mind answering some questions? I have a 7D Mark II which some people regard as the best camera for wildlife. I hope someday to get the 5D Mark III. Do you think your camera is enough superior to the Mark III that it should replace the Mark III on my list? The other day a red-tailed hawk was hunting and I got some good shots. This hawk is a brave soul because he was probably within 30 yards at times. But when the pictures were cropped enough to get anywhere close to what you get the quality of the picture was too degraded. My lens is the Canon 100-400mm L Mk I. The lens you have is out of my price range. What are your thoughts on equipment for wildlife? Is the 5D Mk III or 5D sr better than the 7D Mk II? Do you rely on post processing a lot?