Blog about "The World's best Shark Dive" by Beqa Adventure Divers.
Featuring up to eight regular species of Sharks and over 400 different species of fish, Shark diving doesn't get any better!
There are several crucial elements for great wildlife pics.
The first is knowing your subject matter - and when it comes to knowing Australia's underwater denizens, Mark is second to none. The second is perseverance and/or being in the right place at the right time - this one likely being the latter! The third is getting the shot which is where many, many image hunters fail. The fourth is composition and technique - and failing that, in this day and age, proficiency in post production.
We had started talking ever since he correctly identified Valerie and Cristina, and I will always be thankful to him for helping me unravel the complexities of that frontal attack against the Australian GNS. Alas, the situation there is still dire, so keep watching this space!
Anyway, he has finally found the time to cash in.
It just so happens that his visit coincided with Allen's and from what I can discern, the two guys took each others' measure, liked what they saw and had a real blast, as did I. Both are consummate prominent underwater photographers with a predilection for Sharks and wide angle photography - and yet their portfolios could not be more different.
You can admire a first selection of Mark's stellar pictures here.
A renown Shark photographer, he is above all a fellow Shark diving industry professional - and having discovered those Shark repellent wetsuits, he has taken on SAMS and is publicly, and doggedly asking precise questions about their, and I cite, scientifically designed and developed shark repellent wetsuit technology.
Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMSMark,
our response to your other post on the site today refers. To clarify,
the one minute video sets out one very short extract of a complex
testing process, which has been conducted independently by University of
Western Australia since January. We welcome
you to investigate the science in more detail. The link to which you
have responded sets out the science page at the SAMS website, and the
FAQ page at http://www.sharkmitigation.com/faq.html may provide more information if you would like to check it out.
Mark GraySo
the research hasnt involved Great White Sharks? Bit irresponsible in
Marketing your products and stating that they "Protect" and "hide"
without testing on the major species of sharks which has cause the
fatalities in Australia in recent years..........?
Shark Attack Mitigation Systems - SAMSMark,
we are trying to come up with a positive solution, based in science.
Independent testing will be an ongoing process, potentially taking many
years as we discover how the full range of predatory species respond and
progressively refine the visual technology.
All ocean users are at risk and discretion and caution is always
necessary. We think people know that. We are offering information on
what we have found so far scientifically, and an alternative to a black
neoprene wetsuit so that ocean users can consider that option and make a
choice. We are very clear that we are not offering guarantees. Who
could? We invite you to also contribute positively to this page. We have
responded to two of your posts already on the same theme. If you have
suggestions as to how we could better inform, such as making the
position clearer on our website or including more detail in our FAQ's
then please let us know. We would welcome your constructive
contributions.
Mark GrayWell
according to your previous posting the testing program has only started
in January this year with that testing program only conducted on Tiger
sharks with baited drums???. Wouldnt it be wise and responsible to do
further testing on different species,
namely Great Whites and Bull sharks and using test subjects which
honestly represent how your wetsuits present themselves to potential
predator shark (ie moving dummy surfer or diver)? With all your press
releases and your youtube clip you refer to your products as
"Protecting" or "Hiding" from a potential shark attack and base all your
supporting evidence on a test which produced very limiting results.
You have entered into a full scale marketing event without doing your
homework on the so call technology and the testing involved. Now if you
can not answer my questions from my own experience with sharks on a
regualr basis and with little common knowledge well maybe you have a
take a reall good look at your product and how your market it and
yourself to the community and consumers. I have asked in a previous
posts questions which I and I bet alot of others out there would be
asking and the last response I recieved from you was to quote "Mark, we
note and respect your perspectives and views" but failed to answer the
questions at hand.
Mark GrayI
accept your invitation to contribute positively to this page. What I
would like to see is some more transparency to the technology, research,
and what you conveyin your marketing of your products to the general
public. I would like to see these 10 questions answered:
1. When did the in field testing start? 2. When did your marketing campaign start? 3. Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull sharks? 4.
Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included
baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been? 5.
Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject
wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? 6.
What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic
your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different
visibility, water colour, overhead light ? 7. Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? 8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver? 9. Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been published and if so which publication? 10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing?
1. When did the in field testing start? January 2013 – refer previous post. 2.
When did your marketing campaign start? We have not started marketing,
we did a media release to let people know what we are doing on
Wednesday last week, and opened up the website for review, together with
this Facebook page to encourage discussion. 3.
Has there been any testing of your wetsuits on Great White and Bull
sharks? Not as yet, we have covered this in your earlier posts and
elsewhere in the forum. The next set of tests are proposed to be with
Great Whites. 4.
Has there been any other testing procedure which has not included
baiting of sharks for attracting? If so what have they been? Not at this
stage, the University of Western Australia is precluded from using
humans or humanoid forms of any kind and have determined that the
existing testing process is satisfactory. Baiting is a necessary
practicality to get any engagement with sharks in experimental
conditions. 5.
Has there been any testing which involved moving a simulated subject
wearing you wetsuit through the water (both Diving and Surfing)? Not as
yet. 6.
What in field testing program has been used to determine how Cryptic
your wetsuits are? And how are the results differ with different
visibility, water colour, overhead light ? We have responded to this
question elsewhere on the site yesterday and will include in our FAQ’s
at our website. 7.
Are the Cryptic dive wetsuits loose their ability to “Hide” when a
scuba tank, BCD and fins are added? We have responded to this in your
previous post. 8. How does the Cryptic dive wetsuit hide the noise and sight of the bubbles of a scuba diver? Obviously it doesn’t. 9.
Has the results of the research conducted by the WA University been
published and if so which publication? We have responded to this in the
posts above. 10. Do you personally wear your SAMS wetsuit when your diving or surfing? Yes.
Mark,
you have now posted somewhere between 20 and 30 questions to this page
in the course of a couple of days, most of them repetitious. Some
include personal statements that verge on troll-like behavior. We have
respectfully attempted to answer them.
We
accept that you are not a fan of what we trying to achieve. Equally
there are many people who see logic in the concept and wish to explore
it further. Over the last few days, this has included previous shark
attack victims making contact with us to see how they can help us in our
trials.
We
will not be responding to any further posts from you, we hope you
understand. If you continue to post in this manner we will, with regret,
be obliged to exclude you from the forum.
Mark Grayits
a shame that after you have invited me for constructive contributions
in a previous post your now no longer going to response to my valid
questions regarding your product. I am all for trying to achieve a much
safer aquatic environment for all to enjoy
but I am not a fan on the ways and means in which your company has
mislead the general public by telling them that you are scientifically
backed, have the technology which has proven itself, hides you from the
shark when diving and putting the fear of god into the genral public
especially in your youtube clip stating "now the deadliest coast in the
world". You have based your whole product line on unfinalised research
(Results from 6 months of a 24 months research project) and on a single
species of shark which is not the major cause of fatal attacks here in
Australia, under different conditions which would not apply for which
your products are inteded to be used for. Your Youtube clip and media
releases do not included any of the cautionary comments which you have
included in you website and your response to my questions above show
that your more concerned about getting your product out into the public
eye well before any of the scientific results and conclusions have been
finalised which to me makes me believe that your company is more
concerned with making a quick buck and not addressing the public saferty
of water users. Lie to the genral public and you will be bitten on the
arse but my concern is more for the safety of potential users of your
products who have bought your product based on your mistruths and false
advertising.
Mark GrayFrom the SAMS face book page they finally answered done of my point blank questions.
1. The field testing is a 24 month on going process which started January 2014. Final results are still 18 months away. 2. The field testing is based on one species of shark (tiger) which was attracted by baits 3. The field testing has not involved Great White sharks or Bull Sharks to date 4.
The field testing does not include testing similar sized subject which
would represent the shape and movement of a surfer or diver. According
to SAMS bait is required to attract sharks to the test subjects. 5.
The cryptic dive suits are tested in clear water on a bright day not
results given regarding low light, cloudy, or reduced visibility water
quality. 6. Cryptic dive suits also require cryptic patterns to be also applied to scuba tanks, BCD, fins to make the wetsuit cryptic. 7. Cryptic dive wetsuits will not hide the user from the sight of their bubbles or the noise of their breathing. 8. SAMS acknowledged that GWS do attack using a breach method on silhouette prey on the surface. 9. SAMS also acknowledged that sharks also use other senses other than vision to hunt prey.
On
the basis that field testing was performed by using baited drums on the
test subjects of two tiger sharks in clear water in bright days with
this testing only in its 6 month out of 24 set aside for a finalized
conclusion makes me believe that SAMS is more interested at cashing in
on the fears if the general public that spending time for proper ethical
research to base their products on.
And to the Oceans Institute, this:
Sounds
like your cashing in with the developers and using half truths to sell
wetsuits that "Protect" and "Hide" you from all species of sharks.
This
is making your research look like as joke and is tied up with a bunch
of snake oiler promising the world but delivering nothing
Bingo.
As I first mocked, and then stated: it's justtotal BS and shameless profiteering!
Meanwhile, in la-la land...
David has unearthed yet another priceless life saving video by Eternal Youth Empire aka Israel-Light - how to retard ageing by a whopping 30%!!!