News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Better camouflage than MacK???
« on: February 11, 2009, 12:21:37 PM »
Ok ok, maybe its a bit of a stretch to compare to MacK's ideas on this topic, but there is a potential tie-in to GCA in that the structure is:

1)  In nature
2)  Trying to hide itself as best as it can.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/swedish-mirrored-treehouse.php

Would something similar to this be a practical application to hide various man made structures on a golf course?  Or would it be over the top?

Thoughts?

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2009, 12:27:37 PM »
Are you hiding these structures from bears?
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2009, 12:29:26 PM »
The only problem I see is at the very beginning and very end of the day when the low-angle sun could blind someone.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2009, 12:33:01 PM »
Are you hiding these structures from bears?

Greg,

I think most of why this would be done in the forest as well as potentially on the course would be for aesthics.

Although if you read in the comments on that website, it says you would likely have some dead birds at the base of the unit from flying into the thing.  :'(

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2009, 12:33:44 PM »
How many birds do you think fly into that thing? 

("I was the shadow of the waxwing slain/By the false azure in the windowpane" and so on and so forth.)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2009, 12:45:39 PM »
I will use mirrors to create the appearance of two separate greens to confuse the golfers.  Or, to make a dogleg left appear as a dogleg right. The possibilities are endless.

JMorgan,

In my old office birds flew into glass windows all the time.  What are you thinking, some kind of payback for crapping on your head?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

JMorgan

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2009, 12:53:37 PM »
I will use mirrors to create the appearance of two separate greens to confuse the golfers.  Or, to make a dogleg left appear as a dogleg right. The possibilities are endless.

JMorgan,

In my old office birds flew into glass windows all the time.  What are you thinking, some kind of payback for crapping on your head?

Jeff, now that you mention it, I've had a few crapping incidents (sparrows, blackbird;shirt front, shoulder, head) but they occurred on the walk to work in the heart of Manhattan years ago.  Trying to find a public restroom at the crack of dawn is no fun.  And the people who tell you it's good luck to make you feel better ...  ???   It's bird shit, it's not good luck.

Thanks for reminding me.;)

TEPaul

Re: Better camouflage than MacK??? New
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2009, 02:23:20 PM »
I just love the thought of retooling some of Mac's ideas on camouflage in golf course architecture and perhaps even military trenches with the use of MIRRORS!

The only problem I can see right now is mirrors generally don't do too well with golf balls and bullets by why worry about that now----we can work that out later!
« Last Edit: February 11, 2009, 02:56:37 PM by TEPaul »

Mark_Rowlinson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Better camouflage than MacK???
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2009, 02:53:30 PM »
And here's the view from inside: