I question the photographer who didn't bother to question the parents and then agreed to this.

What difference does it make, Mr fact checker?

Even if the distance is not as much as the article says, and the edge is not as near, it's still very dangerous to put your son in that situation for a pack of stupid photos. A lot of things can happen in a situation like that. It's something that can can just avoid...

Its a joke. On an Internet forum.. Don't take things so seriously and get your panties in a wad by a little comment.

This is so very true

It's like HALF the distance they purported it's lying by omission.

It's a toddler that can't stand/walk and was crawling towards the camera, what could have gone wrong? An Eagle swoops in and pushes him over the edge? He defies the laws of physics and somehow falls backwards while on his knees? The baby was safe, and if he attempted to change his route and go towards the edge of the cliff the parents surely would have prevented him from going far.

I love children and hate to hear about any harm being brought to one, but this little guy wasn't in any serious danger.

ATRL hasn't gone over angles in their 4th grade class yet, it seems.

Ikr? They think it's 604 meters down but it's not. Here, look, the baby would be dashed to pieces on the rocks WAY before reaching the bottom. He would probably hit them somewhere from 950-1000 feet (red arrow).

That looks awful!