Talk:Ghillie suit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just a question, the caption of the picture says a Marine is shown, yet when you click the picture, the box below it says "This image is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee, taken or made during the course of the person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain". Furthermore, the logo in the box is of the "Deparptment of the Army." Should either the caption or the box be changed to eliminate confusion(and nit-picking from people like me)?
If it's a Marine in the picture, it's obviously not a picture of someone in the Army.
Edit: I also posted this in the discussion for the picture, but I put it here as well since the picture probably doesn't get many people looking at it's discussion page.
[edit] Times????
Making a ghillie suit from scratch is time consuming, and a detailed, high-quality suit can take hundreds of hours to manufacture and season for use.
Really 100's of hours???? I doubt it. Is there any basis to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.237.166.156 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
[edit] alternate origin for the name
I have heard the claim that the "ghillie suit" was the creation of an Irish poacher named Gilley. According to the story, he was caught poaching at some point in the 1950s. The policeman was a Territorial Army reservist who recognized the ingenuity and utility of the camouflage suit, and let Gilley go free in exchange for Gilley teaching him how to make one. He in turn showed the suit to some visiting Royal Marines during a training exercise, who decided they would be just the thing for snipers, whereupon they became quite popular in various military establishments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) on 11 May 2007 (UTC). -
- I'm not certain on the origin of the "ghillie" name, but we know that the Scottish Lovat Scouts wore this sort of outfit while fighting the Boers during the Second Boer War (1899-1902). I added a cited statement to the article. -- Ctatkinson 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)