Actually, the Raptor in the beginning is not killed, they are zapping her with tazers. If you remember, he is yelling "shoot her" and there is only one female raptor on the complex, the one that killed most of the pride. It is that raptor that killed the gatekeeper and later Robert Muldoon, the one yelling "shoot her". Just because their were shots being fired does not mean that they actually hit the raptor. Remember, Grant fired the shotgun at the raptor coming through the window, if he could miss then so could their others. Plus, they had to fire through the cage. There is no clear cut source that says that one was killed. Especially since he refers to the raptor as a "her" and there is only 1 female raptor.

• Grant is firing a shotgun. Shotguns spread, so regardless of whether it was a more open space or not it was still a close distance and if you fire a shotgun at a close distance you are going to hit something. What isn't clear is what the men at the beginning are firing. Plus, we don't know the resiliency of the dinosaur skin. If it is anything like a crocodile's skin then it could be rather hard to penatrate effectively. I go back to the other point I made, the one at the beginning was a female and there is only one female in the movie, so deductive logic would say that she is the raptor from the beginning. Also, there have been plenty of movies where people are shot at off camera and presumed to be dead only to show up later. The rule of thumb is if you don't see it on camera then you should not assume otherwise. Think about this, the big one (the female) killed most of the pride and took over as alpha raptor. If the one at the beginning wasn't "the big one" then why did it give so much of a fight? Why didn't all of them do that, and if that one gave such a fight then what kind of fight did "the big one" give? Plus, you have to pay attention to the animosity Robert has for that one particular raptor. The shots where they are both looking each other in the eye, and his death when it is "the big one" that kills him. All sources point to "the big one" being the female raptor in the opening sequences. With the cage design it is easy to think that if she was in a certain spot it would have been hard to hit her. Also, the paddock gate was open and she could have pulled Jophery that direction making it even harder for them to hit her. Bignole 17:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't know if there were some male raptors. they all started female but as was found out later they mutated sex so as to survive. It isn't clear when they actually changed sex, and I would say that they don't keep a keen eye on the raptors to tell which is male and female. The point is, with the gate open you cannot tell where the raptor is. She could be in the crate or in the paddock pulling Jophery in. You also cannot tell what weapons the men are firing. They could be firing non-lethal weapons for all anyone knows. You cannot tell the difference just by sound when it comes to movies because they tend to use generic sounds for all. If they were hitting the raptor, or even killed it, why didn't we also hear it scream? Most animals scream when they are injured and we never once her it scream in pain, the only time was when it rammed the gate and started attacking Jophery. Yes Robert hates all the raptors, but i think he hates all the dinosaurs in general. But, there is a little more animosity between him and "the big one" because of what she did at the beginning. Regardless there is no clear determining fact that says she was killed at the beginning. You hear some gun shots but it's off screen, you hear no scream from the raptor clueing in that it is being killed or even hit, you cannot tell what kind of weaponery is being used, and you don't know where the raptor is actually positioned. Bignole 18:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't need to rewatch the scene I know what happens. There are men on both sides from the front of the cage to the back of the cage with prods. The raptor didn't take up the entire cage, so what didn't they just concentrate in one area? The prods are not that long so it would be ridiculous to have them in almost every access hole to attack the raptor. You still cannot verify where the raptor is when the shots are fired. She was obviously still in the cage when Jophery fell and was sucked in. But, what you cannot determine is where she is at the end of the sequence when they finally start firing their weapons. The gate came up, not fully, but far enough that she could get past it. She didn't ram the gate, she rammed the cage that is why Jophery fell. Jophery was basically finished with the gate and she shook the cage to make him fall. With the gate up she has room to be in the cage and in the paddock whenever she chooses. That cage was rather big and raptors are roughly the size of an adult human male, so she had room. The scream that the raptor gives when it comes out from under the plastic sheet is not a scream of agony or pain. So I don't see what you would associate that scream with one of death. You are saying that animals make the exact same noise when they are in pain as they do when they are excited. I'll remember that the next time I accidentally step on my dog's foot. There is no proof that the raptor is killed in that sequence. Just because you are led to believe one thing does not mean that it is true, and this is especially true in fictionalized movies. The is one raptor that has given them trouble since the moment that it matured, and that was "the big one". It only makes since to think that the one that kills 6 raptors later is the same one that fought when it was being transported earlier. Other than some gunshots at the end (off screen) there is no data that suggests that the raptor was killed. It is never mentioned later that a raptor had to be killed. The one that showed the highest level of intelligence among them was "the big one" and which one showed some cunnningness early on, the one at the beginning of the film. Bignole 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I never said that it wasn't hit, what I said was that there was no definitive data that says that it was hit or killed. You cannot tell me, no matter how many times you watch the scene (and I have seen it enough to know) that that raptor was hit and killed. Yes, at point blank range you can usually assume they are injured and killed. But, guess what, this is a work of fiction and at point blank range you have every oppurtunity to miss. You are arguing something that has no soundness. Yes it's a valid point but it isn't sound. If this was real life I would agree 100% but it is not real life. What you are doing is speculating on certain events based in inconclusive data. You cannot say that the raptor was definitely killed in the opening sequence, that would be pure speculation and wikipedia does not deal with speculation. Hence why I reworded the statement in the article to include the "contraversial death/non-death of the Velociraptor" in the opening sequence. I did not originally post that "note" I was only reverting it after I saw you removed it in favor of an opinion based upon speculation. Speculation can work on both sides. You can speculate the raptor was killed and you can speculate that it was not killed. Unfortunately, when you add up the facts (cause there is no clear answer as to if it is or is not dead) you have to go with the former statement that was put on the page. No dinosaurs were killed by humans in the movie. I'm sorry, but because there is no evidence to support the death you cannot state that it is fact. We are aware of the shots fired, but other than that you don't know what is going on. For the audience knows the shots could be fired in the air in an effort to scare the raptor away from Jophery's body. I know for a fact that you do not see the men with guns actually run up to the cage and fire at the raptor. You simply hear the shots. Since most animals tend to flee when they hear the thunderous sounds of firearms it can be assumed that they were firing their guns in the air. When you watch John Hammond and how he reacts to the contingency plan for the dinosaurs and their lycene diet. John Hammond would probably give strict orders not to terminate the life of the dinosaurs unless strictly given by him. No matter what the case, as I said, the death is mere speculation when there are too many variables that state otherwise. Bignole 21:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to read what I wrote more carefully. I already said that it is speculation on both sides. I have not said that the animal lived or died, I have merely said that you cannot assume either because you don't see anything. The thump being heard could simply be the animal dropping Jophery's body, since it has clearly carried it out of Robert's grasp, which you see in the ending shot. If the animal drops before that then why would the hand continue to get pulled from Robert's arm? So, the thump could be it dropping the body at the sound of the gunfire. What you are missing is that I am not trying to say that the animal died or did not die. What I am doing is trying to say that you cannot say that it was killed on a wikipedia page because it would be speculation and you know. Regardless of what you believe it is still a matter of opinion and opinion is not a place for Wikipedia. You are trying to turn this into a debate about whether the animal died or not, when I am not arguing with you about that. What I am arguing is that you cannot determine the fate of the animal, no matter what peices you put together, because there is no conclusive evidence that says it is dead. So, the point is (now that we are finally back to where we started) you cannot post opinion and call it fact. Hence the reason why I added to the other person's original note on the article that there is contraversy surrounding the events at the opening sequence and whether or not the Velociraptor was actually killed by the guards.

Oh, and since you want to call the scene for me, you should note that it does not fade to Gennero but it dissolves to Gennero. The difference is the fadding involves going to black or coming out of black. When you dissolve you are overlapping scenes, which indicates a shorter amount of time has passed, then say if you were to fade-out to black and then fade-in from black. This way when you make this argument to someone else you can atleast use the correct transitional shots.

Also, let's make this clear, I am not, by any means, calling you wrong. What I am saying is that for the purposes of this website there is not enough information to suggest that it is fact and can be used as fact in this encyclopedia. For all extensive purposes I know where you are coming from and when I first saw the movie I thought that same thing. But when you watch it again and again and see Robert's mentality toward that particular "big one", his reaction to Jophery's death, the way they cut between his eyes and her eyes, the inconclusive "death" by off camera firing...it makes one believe that "the big one" is the one from the opening sequence. You have to take a lot more information in to be able to understand that. Why do it off camera, why not atleast show the men with the guns running up to the crate and sticking the guns in. That would without a doubt solidify the fact that it was killed. Instead, you get off screen gun shots that do not determine anything. They could be firing in the air, they could be firing at Jophery. Did you ever think that they were shooting Jophery because he was basically suffering and they wanted to end his misery and the thump was her dropping his dead body? Alan Grant made it a point to show that raptors do start eating you alive. Maybe to her a dead body isn't worth the effort. Some animals are not scavengers and prefer to eat their prey while it is still alive. Bignole 22:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I was only responding with such an attitude because I felt it was directing at me when you decided to deliver the scene to me shot by shot. I'm sorry for the misinterpretation of what you did. Bignole 22:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well not showing it because of kids wouldn't be a reason, the movie was PG-13 so kids were really permitted to see. When you think about it, it is easier to get away with showing the death of a dinosaur by humans then death a humans by dinosaur. Think of the graphic death of Gennero and Mr. Arnold's severed arm landing on Dr. Sadler's shoulder, or the Velociraptor latching on to Robert's face and body. I don't think it was a less is more thing because the biggest thing in that scene is Jophery's death. The less is more would be more along the lines of not actually seeing what is happening to Jophery. It wouldn't do well not to show them kill the raptor. You also have to remember that Speilberg doesn't just like to show you simple things. It would simple just to kill the raptor, but, it would be better to say that Hammond would never allow them to kill his creation, no matter what the cost (remember when Arnold spoke of the lycene contingency and Hammond freaked and that was after Gennero's death and the sabatoge of the park) and that Robert wishes to destroy all the raptors because of what Hammond allowed, which is the release of the raptor that killed Jophery, and would also explain his intense dislike for the larger female. I mean a raptor's a raptor and if wants them dead then he wouldn't mind of one of them was killing the others that would save him the job, but no he really doesn't like "the big one" and you can hear in his tone and how he speaks of her. Bignole 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. It's something that really makes no never mind because it isn't an important notoriety. I can see where the note is so contraversial that it probably does not qualify to be in the page and can be remove, and such I agree if you wish to remove it. As for Hammond's reaction to Arnold because of the death of the raptor in the beginning. It seems like a stretch to assume that he would become enraged almost at the thought of the lycene contingency because of having to kill one dinosaur earlier. You don't really go around thinking to yourself that because you had to put one down earlier you don't want to have to put all of them down because they are now running rampid and killing people. I think he didn't want to put the contingency into effect because they are his babies and who wants to kill their babies, and when you have his money you can say what gets killed and what doesn't. But, the same argument can be made that says that Hammond was enraged by that though because it was Robert that made the suggestion and it was Robert that ordered the female to be shot in the opening. I think that there are too many indeterminable factors to be able to destinguished what outcome is indeed correct. Bignole 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm sitting down with a nice bowl of popcorn to rewatch Jurassic Park in it's entirety (cause all the talk made me want to watch it) and I think you may want to get your hearing checked. I don't know what you heard but there is no *thump* in the scene. He yells "shoot her" and you hear them start firing and he continues to yell "shoot her" then, where you said the raptor makes a sound..that is the orchestra making a *whoosh* (excuse my poor verbalization of sounds) sound to signify him loosing Jophery's hand. The sound you think is the raptor's is actually associated with the slipping of Robert's grip. That isn't a raptor groan and there definitely isn't a thump anywhere in there. Just thought I would let you know, since I watching it as you suggested. I still agree that it much too speculatory to decide if they were firing at her or in the air to have it included in the article. Bignole 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I watched it twice and turned sound way up, and I have a home theater system, and the sound you call a growl, cause I know what you are refering to, really isn't a growl but I can see how you can assume that cause it's really low key but if you listen it's part of the ochestra and it place about a second before Jophery's hand slips through Roberts. If that was a death groan then why would his hand continue to get pulled away, and as for the thump..the gunshots continue until the scene is completely dissolved there is never a thump just continuous firing. But here is something to note. When Robert yells "work her back" you should note that all the men with prods surround the cage...how to you plan to work her back if you are prodding her from behind? lol. What is your Jurassic Park site? -- I finally finished the movie and I see where the grunt from the beginning is at the end when she comes from under the sheet. I correct that because it did come from her and not the orchestra but that was still a grunt of excitement and not of pain. Why ellicit the same sound when you are dying that you make when you see something you are about to kill? Since that is the same noise you could infer that it's the same raptor, because they make the same grunt when attacking. Bignole 15:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, I know this may seem highly nerdy of me, but I have put a lot of time, effort, and money into utilizing information from the Jurassic Park films and separating the canon for the movie from the novel and establishing what is movie canon and what is novel canon. The information I presented is sourced off of my own Jurassic Park website I spent three years in development time and another three years making it, despite thousands of countless viewings of the film to make sure whatever information presented was indeed accurate. If there is genuinely an issue in the explanation I would like to re-write it instead of eliminating it entirely from the article. Continuity separation between the movies, novels, video games, toys, and so forth are important as if you combine everything together it is inconsistant. I found this important enough that it really should be noted in the article. --Tyrannosaur 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not meant to denigrate your efforts to establish canonicity of Jurassic Park materials. The problem is that Wikipedia does not allow original research. Wikipedia is a compilation of information that is already published or recorded by other primary and secondary sources ("reliable sources" in the Wikipedia vernacular), and those sources must have a reputation in the world at large (not just among fans of the publication or website). Determination of what constitutes a reliable source can be contentious, but one principle is fairly clear: editors cannot use their own outside writings as sources unless they themselves (or their work) meet the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia, and recent events have strengthened the onus against Wikipedia:Autobiography writing about one's own work. But even if you just got this material from a Jurassic Park fan website, it would probably not qualify for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. However, if you disagree, you are welcome to bring this up on the article's talk page. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the no original research policy and I concede to your point about it; however, I wish to present as much factual information to anyone that is curious. Don't people come to read Wikipedia in order to seek factual information? Of course, I recall that being the purpose of this site, or more accurately they seek information without going through the extensively daunting research procedures that discourage many. In order to prove the research is factual and unbiased I have a group of peers, the site's staff, to help check any research done. I would like to invite you to also check over the information in order to help futher the research accuracy. I feel it is of upmost importance to have correct information to anyone who seeks it. I do not do this in an attempt to seek notoriety. My research is to share and be as correct and unbiased as possible for anyone who seeks to know more about the subject. My site is currently the only place online or off taking information from the original source materials and transcribing it for the sake of giving the public accurate information. --Tyrannosaur 21:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement of Wikipedia:Verifiability is:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. [emphasis in original]

Please read this critical policy page for an explanation of why this must be. In short, Wikipedia editors are not in (and aren't expected to be in) a position to confirm the truth of its sources, which is why the Foundation insists on using reputable published material only for sourcing. Wikipedia has no system to determine the accuracy, depth, or objectivity of your (or anyone else's) website and research. It uses the marketplace of ideas, in which writers must convince respected publishers to vouch for their material, to winnow out the vast number of websites, vanity presses, and other means that humanity has these days for communicating individual thoughts and opinions. Again, this is not a judgment of the accuracy or utility of any particular source; it's just a necessary threshhold to set to avoid having Wikipedia turn into a global blog. I hope this helps explain the rationale. I really do recommend you read these policy pages; many thousands of people-years have gone into forming them. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Female raptorjptlw.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: ((TemplateName)).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Male raptortlw.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: ((TemplateName)).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Female raptorjp3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: ((TemplateName)).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Male raptorjp3.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: ((TemplateName)).

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 82.83.65.227 13:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a message at Talk:Isla Sorna that I just left that may interest you. Batmanand | Talk 12:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Tyrannosaur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

70.228.99.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

This IP range is used by long-time vandal Cplot and shared by others. Blocking to prevent account creation and editing

• Blocking administrator: Raul654 (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: You have been blocked directly as stated in your block log. Since you have not provided a reason for being unblocked, your request has been declined. You may provide a reason for being unblocked by adding ((unblock | your reason here)) to the bottom of your talk page, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. WinHunter ^(talk) 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyrannosaur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've done nothing wrong nor vandalism of any sort! Please look at my http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tyrannosaur to see this...

Decline reason:

Contrary to WinHunter's comment, you are not directly blocked. However, you seem to be operating from an IP range that has been blocked for being used by a persistent vandal. Please stand by while I contact the blocking admin. -- Sandstein 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.