How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?

[John Doe[_4_]]

I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
risky?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike

Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
Thanks.

[John Doe[_4_]]

Sorry, I should have been more specific.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s

The point of interest begins at about 1:20 in the original link.

[a425couple]

"John Doe" > wrote in message...
> Sorry, I should have been more specific.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s
> The point of interest begins at about 1:20 in the original link.

"How difficult?"
Please note that not many even try to do it that extremly.

The song does seem correct.

"I blame it on my own sick pride
Sail!
Maybe I should cry for help
Maybe I should kill myself
Blame it on my A.D.D. baby
Maybe I'm a different breed
Maybe I'm not listening
So blame it on my A.D.D. baby"

You may wish to note the more recent youtubes
of him in South Africa.
Wiki says, "On 16 January 2012 Jeb suffered multiple leg fractures
in an accident while BASE jumping off Table Mountain, Cape Town,
South Africa. He appeared to strike with his feet, probably pulling up
to make the edge, spinning 30 meters out before deploying his chute.
He was airlifted out by the Red Cross Air Mercy Service Augusta 119."

[John Doe[_4_]]

"a425couple" <a425couple hotmail.com> wrote:

> "John Doe" <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote

>> Sorry, I should have been more specific.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s
>> The point of interest begins at about 1:20 in the original link.
>
> "How difficult?"

That is the question. It's not like flying next to a mountain
where you have an easy out.

> The song does seem correct.

Did you diss Jeb Corliss before you noticed he was in an
accident?

--








>
> "I blame it on my own sick pride
> Sail!
> Maybe I should cry for help
> Maybe I should kill myself
> Blame it on my A.D.D. baby
> Maybe I'm a different breed
> Maybe I'm not listening
> So blame it on my A.D.D. baby"
>
> You may wish to note the more recent youtubes
> of him in South Africa.
> Wiki says, "On 16 January 2012 Jeb suffered multiple leg fractures
> in an accident while BASE jumping off Table Mountain, Cape Town,
> South Africa. He appeared to strike with his feet, probably pulling up
> to make the edge, spinning 30 meters out before deploying his chute.
> He was airlifted out by the Red Cross Air Mercy Service Augusta 119."
>
>
>

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-07.inet.qwest.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!nx01.iad01. newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.21.MISMA TCH!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com !news1
> From: "a425couple" <a425couple hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avi ation.military
> Subject: Re: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
> Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 20:43:35 -0800
> Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
> Lines: 27
> Message-ID: <jh27a501n2s news1.newsguy.com>
> References: <4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com> <4f348e3e$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: p372daeb3aa3f7cb8ec4fadbc66049d742946a5c83d76fe6a. newsdawg.com
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> In-Reply-To: <4f348e3e$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com>
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463
> X-Received-Bytes: 2013
>

[VinceC]

There is nothing new under the sun. This from the 1930's

http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//BHC_RTV/1936/05/04/BGX407212103/?s=gliding&st=0&pn=1

[Keith W[_4_]]

VinceC wrote:
> There is nothing new under the sun. This from the 1930's
>
> http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//BHC_RTV/1936/05/04/BGX407212103/?s=gliding&st=0&pn=1

As the pioneer Air mail pilot E. Hamilton Lee said

Don't be a show-off.
Never be too proud to turn back.
There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

He knew a trick or two as at the time (1919) the life expectancy of an
Air Mail pilot was estimated to be three years. Lee flew the mails
from 1918 to 1927 before going on to fly with Boeing Air Transport
and United Airlines. He celebrated his 100th birthday at the
controls of a DC-3

Keith

[Peter F[_2_]]

Define "Difficult".

Given the minimal amout of control over trajectory of a wingsuit there's
actually little "skill" involved in doing this. You more or less go where
gravity takes you.

Now if he could soar with it then that would be difficult!

PF

(Bored with skydiving in my 20s - BTDT)

At 03:24 10 February 2012, John Doe wrote:
>I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>risky?
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
>Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>Thanks.
>

[John Doe[_4_]]

VinceC <vincent cwgsy.net> wrote:

> There is nothing new under the sun. This from the 1930's
>
> http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//BHC_RTV/1936/05/04/BGX407212103/
?s=gliding&st=0&pn=1

Parachuting is supposed to be comparable to this?!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?
feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s

And the question remains, how difficult is that? Obviously it's
not as easy as just steering yourself close to a mountain, since
there is no easy out.

[John Doe[_4_]]

Peter F <ls4_pah yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Define "Difficult".

It's in every English-language dictionary in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s

> Given the minimal amout of control over trajectory of a wingsuit
> there's actually little "skill" involved in doing this.

If there is minimal control, unless it were a very short flight,
your conclusion is bass ackwards. An uncontrolled glider could
never do the same.

> You more or less go where gravity takes you.
>
> Now if he could soar with it then that would be difficult!

I would be willing to bet that you cannot do anything nearly as
difficult and that you have nothing to show that you can do
anything at all that remotely resembles that stunt. In other
words, put up or stop trolling.

--













>
> PF
>
> (Bored with skydiving in my 20s - BTDT)
>
> At 03:24 10 February 2012, John Doe wrote:
>>I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>>gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>>risky?
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>>
>>Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>Thanks.
>>
>
>

[T8]

On Feb 10, 11:28*am, John Doe > wrote:

> I would be willing to bet that you cannot do anything nearly as
> difficult and that you have nothing to show that you can do
> anything at all that remotely resembles that stunt. In other
> words, put up or stop trolling.

Take it to a skydiving forum. We don't care.

-T8

[Floyd BANNED From Project Camelot Forum]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:03:38 -0000, Keith W wrote:

> As the pioneer Air mail pilot E. Hamilton Lee said
>
> Don't be a show-off.
> Never be too proud to turn back.
> There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.
> Jack my dick and I'll squirt my prick.

Interesting. Inane but still interesting.
--
I Cum A Lot In Camelot! http://tinyurl.com/4yj3dkj

[John Doe[_4_]]

T8 <tangoeight gmail.com> wrote:

> John Doe > wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=81s

>> I would be willing to bet that you cannot do anything nearly as
>> difficult and that you have nothing to show that you can do
>> anything at all that remotely resembles that stunt. In other
>> words, put up or stop trolling.
>
> Take it to a skydiving forum. We don't care.

Act like a grown up and press the ignore thread key.
Or don't. Doesn't matter.

--













>
> -T8
>

[T8]

On Feb 10, 11:53*am, John Doe > wrote:
> T8 <tangoeight gmail.com> wrote:
> > John Doe > wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#....
>
> >> I would be willing to bet that you cannot do anything nearly as
> >> difficult and that you have nothing to show that you can do
> >> anything at all that remotely resembles that stunt. In other
> >> words, put up or stop trolling.
>
> > Take it to a skydiving forum. *We don't care.
>
> Act like a grown up and press the ignore thread key.
> Or don't. Doesn't matter.
>

Maybe ask for some investment advice as long as you're here.

It would make about as much sense.

[John Doe[_4_]]

T8 <tangoeight gmail.com> wrote:

> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>> T8 <tangoeight gmail.com> wrote:
>>> John Doe <j... usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s

>>> Take it to a skydiving forum. ÿWe don't care.
>>
>> Act like a grown up and press the ignore thread key.
>> Or don't. Doesn't matter.

> Maybe ask for some investment advice as long as you're here.

I'm not asking for advice. But considering your replies,
that might be true.

> It would make about as much sense.

That sounds like nonsense from a troll.

--










See also Google Groups
> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! feed.news.qwest.net!mpls-nntp-05.inet.qwest.net!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.e du!postnews.google.com!do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.co m!not-for-mail
> From: T8 <tangoeight gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
> Subject: Re: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:04:34 -0800 (PST)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 22
> Message-ID: <10da2fc4-678b-4a76-8a4f-14093373fa89 do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
> References: <4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com> <4f34e720$0$18371$a8266bb1 newsreader.readnews.com> <4f354592$0$32735$c3e8da3$dbd57e7 news.astraweb.com> <1f8e38f5-9136-4995-b3ff-af15007568fe k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> <4f354ba4$0$21391$c3e8da3$96d63e41 news.astraweb.com>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.175.133.46
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328893474 15077 127.0.0.1 (10 Feb 2012 17:04:34 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:04:34 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.175.133.46; posting-account=kEPMYQoAAADkGC-O3-D-7kFUo9Vym82e
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Google-Web-Client: true
> X-Google-Header-Order: HUALENKRC
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:10.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/10.0,gzip(gfe)
>

[lynn]

On Feb 9, 9:24*pm, John Doe > wrote:
> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> risky?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.

Odds are he won't make it to his next birthday. Excess adrenalin is
addictive and causes one to take unnecessary risks.

[Dave Doe]

In article <39e02738-8040-4786-8f6c-
>, , lynn
says...
>
> On Feb 9, 9:24*pm, John Doe > wrote:
> > I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> > gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> > risky?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
> >
> > Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> > Thanks.
>
> Odds are he won't make it to his next birthday. Excess adrenalin is
> addictive and causes one to take unnecessary risks.

Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

--
Duncan.

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:

>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>> > I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know
>> > that gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is
>> > extremely risky?
>> >
>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s
>> >
>> > Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>> > Thanks.

> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o

This is about the trip to the hospital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike

The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might agree
with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows what the
risks are. Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a
better purpose but not as much fun.

[John Doe[_4_]]

> Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a better
> purpose

No disrespect intended, it just depends on the politic in charge.

[Daryl]

On 2/10/2012 9:12 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a better
>> purpose
>
> No disrespect intended, it just depends on the politic in charge.

Wrong, As dangerous as a Specops mission is, they are well
thought out and executed and normally are highly successful.

SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs. They know their job and do it
probably beyond human capability but chance takers they aren't.
When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
along the way and their people die in the process. When it looks
almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
and execution of the mission. Almost all missions have been
successful.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>
>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know
>>>> that gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is
>>>> extremely risky?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>
>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>>> Thanks.
>
>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>
> This is about the trip to the hospital.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>
> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
> shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might agree
> with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows what the
> risks are. Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a
> better purpose but not as much fun.

Actually they don't and anyone taking risks as extreme as that
would wash out in the selection process.

Keith

[[email protected][_2_]]

To the original question: Not that difficult, mentally stressful far
beyond anything you will do in a glider and of course unforgiving of
small mistakes. Anybody fit, aggressive, and with reasonable aptitude
could give it a go after a few seasons jumping every weekend(provided
they were training for this as a goal.) There have been about a half
dozen wingsuit proximity deaths in the last few years, no idea how
many people are playing the game. If anyone wants to try understand
it takes a tremendous amount of time(money helps) to travel to these
places, learn lines, hike, wait weather, etc. Similar to racing
sailplanes, you can't do it if you only have 2 weeks vacation a year.
As the saying goes: Good pilots don't have real jobs...

On Feb 9, 10:24*pm, John Doe > wrote:
> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> risky?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.

[John Doe[_4_]]

"Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>
>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>
>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>
>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>
>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
>> shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might
>> agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows
>> what the risks are. Our special forces take risks like that,
>> perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>
> Actually they don't

I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom, but
I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff like
waterboarding is to see how they will react/function/operate when
they think they are going to die. A significant risk of death is
not uncommon during a mission.

> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in the
> selection process.

Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military? Difficult to tell
by your posting history since apparently you are nym-shifting.

--













>
> Keith
>
>
>

[John Doe[_4_]]

Speaking of difficulty... I am impressed at how difficult giving
somebody credit appears to be, here on UseNet. Calling someone a
"coward" is not uncommon, even though it's silly.

Let me try to illustrate the intended point another way. The stunt
starts about here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s

Jeb Corliss is not just flying over terrain that is declining at
least as fast as his descent rate. What appears to me to be the
very difficult part is that he flies within 10 feet of the ground.
If that's not exceptionally difficult, you should be able to point
me to another video of someone else doing the same thing (or
similar, at some other location). What appears to me to be
unusually difficult about his stunt is that he has no escape
route. Some wingsuit users fly close mountain sides, but they can
abort simply by steering in the opposite direction at any time up
until the last second.

[John Doe[_4_]]

Daryl <dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:

>>> Our special forces take risks like that

> Wrong,

Bull****.

> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,

You just contradicted yourself.

> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> successful.

Well thought out and risky = difficult.

> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.

You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
doesn't use a stuntman or props.

> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability

Are you in a movie?

> but chance takers they aren't.

You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.

--






> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> along the way and their people die in the process. When it looks
> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> and execution of the mission. Almost all missions have been
> successful.
>

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>
>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>
>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
>>> shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might
>>> agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows
>>> what the risks are. Our special forces take risks like that,
>>> perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>
>> Actually they don't
>
> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom, but
> I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff like
> waterboarding is to see how they will react/function/operate when
> they think they are going to die. A significant risk of death is
> not uncommon during a mission.
>

Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the
chance of success.

>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in the
>> selection process.
>
> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?

Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
and your drops your comrades in the ****. Special forces
are required to be tough and brave but not suicidal.

> Difficult to tell
> by your posting history since apparently you are nym-shifting.
>

I post under my own name and always have.

Keith

[John Doe[_4_]]

"Keith W" > wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rF
>>>>>>> Qc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>>
>>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>>
>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>
>>> Actually they don't
>>
>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>
>
> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
> of success.

Piddly semantics.

>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>> the selection process.
>>
>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>
> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
> and your drops your comrades in the ****.

That's an entirely different subject.

> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
> suicidal.

Ever hear of "Japan"?

>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>> are nym-shifting.
>>
>
> I post under my own name and always have.

You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?

--













>
> Keith
>
>
>

[Daryl]

On 2/11/2012 8:29 AM, John Doe wrote:
> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>
>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
>
>> Wrong,
>
> Bull****.
>
>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> You just contradicted yourself.
>
>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>> successful.
>
> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> Are you in a movie?
>
>> but chance takers they aren't.
>
> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>

Exactly what are your Military Credentials? Most of us in here
have them or have been connected to the Military in some way in
the past who generally comment on the procedures. What are your
creds?

Mine is 20 years in USAF and I have worked along with SFs in my
time and can tell you that they are not risk takers. They just
know their jobs so well that it may appear that way to someone
less informed.



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rF
>>>>>>>> Qc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>>>
>>>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>
>>>> Actually they don't
>>>
>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>
>>
>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>> of success.
>
> Piddly semantics.
>
>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>> the selection process.
>>>
>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>
>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>> and your drops your comrades in the ****.
>
> That's an entirely different subject.
>
>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>> suicidal.
>
> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>

Yes they lost, one of the reasons being they disdained normal
military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
result.

>>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>>> are nym-shifting.
>>>
>>
>> I post under my own name and always have.
>
> You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?
>

Rather more than that I think you'll find

Keith

[John Doe[_4_]]

Daryl <dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>
>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
>>
>>> Wrong,
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>>
>> You just contradicted yourself.
>>
>>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>>> successful.
>>
>> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>>
>>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>>
>> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
>> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>>
>>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>>
>> Are you in a movie?
>>
>>> but chance takers they aren't.
>>
>> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing
>> semantics.
>>
>
> Exactly what are your Military Credentials?

Not much.

> Mine is 20 years in USAF

Given your lack of honesty in my usual respect for the military
and veterans, that claim is depressing.

> and I have worked along with SFs in my time and can tell you
> that they are not risk takers.

Ever hear of a "calculated risk"?

You just want to do a semantical circle jerk, as evidenced by your
contradictory and fanciful statements. I'd rather stick to the
subject.

--














>
>
>
> --
> http://tvmoviesforfree.com
> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
> programs.
>
>

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Daryl <dhunt nospami70west3.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avi ation.military
> Subject: Re: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 09:30:23 -0700
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 50
> Message-ID: <jh6537$rnr$1 dont-email.me>
> References: <4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com> <39e02738-8040-4786-8f6c-1967b3f7ad7d dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <MPG.29a0954b3c65d70a9898d3 news.eternal-september.org> <4f35ea26$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com> <4f35eac3$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com> <jh55n3$vog$1 dont-email.me> <4f368956$0$23399$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:30:32 +0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="Gf8ehz9B5xRnWK3lyvb2MQ"; logging-data="28411"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+K6CfF6SezGXG/6I9s994S6V3RHw4Id2A="
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
> In-Reply-To: <4f368956$0$23399$c3e8da3$f017e9df news.astraweb.com>
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:qgQx6q3PjjDfFP5YTAsq7Uwb230=
>

[John Doe[_4_]]

"Keith W" > wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W" > wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rF
>>>>>>>>> Qc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>>
>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>> of success.
>>
>> Piddly semantics.
>>
>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>> the selection process.
>>>>
>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>>
>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>> and your drops your comrades in the ****.
>>
>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>
>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>> suicidal.
>>
>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>
>
> Yes they lost,

lol

Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
do a lot of damage.

--











> one of the reasons being they disdained normal
> military rules like providing adequate logistics and defending
> supply convoys. They lost an entire army in Burma as a
> result.
>
>>>> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>>>> are nym-shifting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I post under my own name and always have.
>>
>> You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?
>>
>
> Rather more than that I think you'll find
>
> Keith
>
>
>

[Daryl]

On 2/11/2012 11:14 AM, John Doe wrote:
> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
>>>
>>>> Wrong,
>>>
>>> Bull****.
>>>
>>>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>>>
>>> You just contradicted yourself.
>>>
>>>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>>>> successful.
>>>
>>> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>>>
>>>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>>>
>>> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
>>> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>>>
>>>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>>>
>>> Are you in a movie?
>>>
>>>> but chance takers they aren't.
>>>
>>> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing
>>> semantics.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly what are your Military Credentials?
>
> Not much.
>
>> Mine is 20 years in USAF
>
> Given your lack of honesty in my usual respect for the military
> and veterans, that claim is depressing.

And you are evading the question. What are YOUR credentials?


>
>> and I have worked along with SFs in my time and can tell you
>> that they are not risk takers.
>
> Ever hear of a "calculated risk"?
>
> You just want to do a semantical circle jerk, as evidenced by your
> contradictory and fanciful statements. I'd rather stick to the
> subject.

Mine are dead on and someone like you with Zero experience around
these folks will never understand. So be it.


>


--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" > wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W" > wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rF
>>>>>>>>>> Qc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>>>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>>> of success.
>>>
>>> Piddly semantics.
>>>
>>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>>> the selection process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>>>
>>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>>> and your drops your comrades in the ****.
>>>
>>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>>
>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>> suicidal.
>>>
>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>
>>
>> Yes they lost,
>
> lol
>
> Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
> suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
> do a lot of damage.
>

And lose every war they fight.

Keith

[Dan[_12_]]

On 2/11/2012 9:52 AM, John Doe wrote:
> "Keith > wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>> suicidal.
>
> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>
There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special
operations missions.
Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes don't need
to be trained beyond the requirements needed to operate their suicide
weapons, special operators are trained to do any mission asked of them
etc. But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

On 2/11/2012 1:58 PM, Keith W wrote:
> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith > wrote:
>>
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> "Keith > wrote:
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dave Doe<hard work.ok> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> John Doe<jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I
>>>>>>>>>>> know that gliding limits your ability to control altitude.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is extremely risky?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rF
>>>>>>>>>>> Qc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was. Thanks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>>>>>>>>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is about the trip to the hospital.
>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy
>>>>>>>> his shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I
>>>>>>>> might agree with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But
>>>>>>>> he knows what the risks are. Our special forces take risks
>>>>>>>> like that, perhaps for a better purpose but not as much fun.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually they don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't say for sure how you all do it in the United Kingdom,
>>>>>> but I suspect it's the same as here in the United States...
>>>>>> One reason our special forces troops are subjected to stuff
>>>>>> like waterboarding is to see how they will
>>>>>> react/function/operate when they think they are going to die. A
>>>>>> significant risk of death is not uncommon during a mission.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed but taking unnecessary risks does not improve the chance
>>>>> of success.
>>>>
>>>> Piddly semantics.
>>>>
>>>>>>> and anyone taking risks as extreme as that would wash out in
>>>>>>> the selection process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liberal namby-pamby type? Gays in the military?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hardly, taking unnecessary risks puts the mission in jeopardy
>>>>> and your drops your comrades in the ****.
>>>>
>>>> That's an entirely different subject.
>>>>
>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>>> suicidal.
>>>>
>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes they lost,
>>
>> lol
>>
>> Not necessarily because of their suicides. Some Arabs are
>> suicidal, but even given their lack of technological ability, they
>> do a lot of damage.
>>
>
> And lose every war they fight.
>
> Keith
>
>

John doe is beginning to sound like aren't with his post counts and
body counts.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dan <B2431B aol.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>> suicidal.
>>
>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>
> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special
> operations missions.

Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or not
is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a special force
mission. It requires the same sort of extreme discipline. Maybe
you are more familiar with World War II Japanese terminology, and
whether they considered kamikazes to be special forces or not. Not
that it matters with respect to the subject, but it might be
interesting off-topic trivia to you.

> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained to
> do any mission asked of them etc.

Including flight school? Sounds naïve to me.

> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.

Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
group that is full of difficulties.

--














>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan[_12_]]

On 2/11/2012 3:38 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>> suicidal.
>>>
>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>
>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and special
>> operations missions.
>
> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or not
> is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a special force
> mission. It requires the same sort of extreme discipline. Maybe
> you are more familiar with World War II Japanese terminology, and
> whether they considered kamikazes to be special forces or not. Not
> that it matters with respect to the subject, but it might be
> interesting off-topic trivia to you.
>
>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained to
>> do any mission asked of them etc.
>
> Including flight school? Sounds naïve to me.
>
>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
>
> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
> group that is full of difficulties.
>

Obviously you have no idea what special ops is. I spent 14 years in
special ops.

Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought up
flight school. Yes, some special operators are flight crews. Ever heard
of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command. There's more to
special ops than the men at the "tip of the spear."

You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes. At
the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special operators
plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics," the rest of the
world calls it reality.

I suggest you do some research on what special ops really means.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[John Doe[_4_]]

Dan <B2431B aol.com> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>>> suicidal.
>>>>
>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>>
>>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and
>>> special operations missions.
>>
>> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or
>> not is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a
>> special force mission. It requires the same sort of extreme
>> discipline. Maybe you are more familiar with World War II
>> Japanese terminology, and whether they considered kamikazes to
>> be special forces or not. Not that it matters with respect to
>> the subject, but it might be interesting off-topic trivia to
>> you.
>>
>>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
>>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
>>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained
>>> to do any mission asked of them etc.
>>
>> Including flight school? Sounds na‹ve to me.
>>
>>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
>>
>> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
>> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
>> group that is full of difficulties.
>>
>
> Obviously you have no idea what special ops is.

As much is your idea of what the subject is.

> I spent 14 years in special ops.

Cool. Are unmanned drone operators considered "special ops"?

> Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought
> up flight school.

I also brought up "special forces".

> Yes, some special operators are flight crews.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."

> Ever heard of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command.
> There's more to special ops than the men at the "tip of the
> spear."

Cool. Then I would wonder why you have no comment on one of the
most extraordinary aerobatic feats in modern times.

> You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes.

Would "special operators" include a joystick operator of an
unmanned drone?! If so, I happily insult special operators.

Big fat egotism is one of the problems with some of our current
military and leaders. Even some who pretend to be religious seem
to think that human life is not to be taken seriously. But in
fact, someone who is willing to give up their life for a cause
should be shown maximum respect. There is no greater sacrifice.

> At the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special
> operators plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics,"
> the rest of the world calls it reality.

Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces
is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search
for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get
over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
sense to me.

--










>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>


> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.ta gs.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.gi ganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:01:31 -0600
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:01:28 -0600
> From: Dan <B2431B aol.com>
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avi ation.military
> Subject: Re: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
> References: <4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com> <39e02738-8040-4786-8f6c-1967b3f7ad7d dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <MPG.29a0954b3c65d70a9898d3 news.eternal-september.org> <4f35ea26$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com> <GZrZq.102832$M05.95198 newsfe20.ams2> <4f36805f$0$4770$c3e8da3$12bcf670 news.astraweb.com> <M0wZq.30648$yg4.19549 newsfe14.ams2> <4f368eb1$0$2843$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com> <wOydnVCKU8H3VKvSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d giganews.com> <4f36dfd9$0$9700$c3e8da3$1cbc7475 news.astraweb.com>
> In-Reply-To: <4f36dfd9$0$9700$c3e8da3$1cbc7475 news.astraweb.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Message-ID: <_rqdnZGAiNimeKvSnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d giganews.com>
> Lines: 52
> X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
> X-Trace: sv3-RA8nQYykkQOSdyUTYodr/vK2/zC7uelM8J5yNl7rWmKzU4B2bvpQ8/8q9kM5S/i2LwugqhgTYwAP/w9!mGV3ctAXFfVyETisI/TFMowu7hshZEni27AUcnZnnqDKVVB0slRhNRwnpAPLplCuiOhL O7Zk5RU=
> X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com
> X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
> X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
> X-Original-Bytes: 3752

>

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
>
> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces
> is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search
> for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get
> over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
> specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
> sense to me.
>

The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special
Action Groups

Google picks up on the word 'Special' its a simple as that.

Real special forces are too highly trained to be regarded as disposable.

Keith

[John Doe[_4_]]

"Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>>
>> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
>> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special
>> forces is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When
>> you search for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same
>> time, you get over 1 million results. Looks like some of those
>> results specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes.
>> Makes sense to me.
>>
>
> The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special
> Action Groups

That is one of the lamest trolls I have seen on UseNet. A simple
search for "Kamikaze's Special Action Groups" produces ZERO
results.

Doing a simple search for "kamikazes" and "special action groups"
returns a grand total of 28 results, none to do with Japanese
kamikazes.

> Google picks up on the word 'Special' its a simple as that.

Try an Internet search on Earth...

--













>
> Real special forces are too highly trained to be regarded as disposable.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>

> Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com! news.glorb.com!news.unit0.net!cyclone02.ams2.highw inds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!voer-me.highwinds-media.com!npeersf01.ams.highwinds-media.com!newsfe09.ams2.POSTED!00000000!not-for-mail
> From: "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring,rec.aviation.piloting,rec.avi ation.military
> References: <4f348ddf$0$28809$c3e8da3$f48d872 news.astraweb.com> <39e02738-8040-4786-8f6c-1967b3f7ad7d dp8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <MPG.29a0954b3c65d70a9898d3 news.eternal-september.org> <4f35ea26$0$31221$c3e8da3$b280bf18 news.astraweb.com> <GZrZq.102832$M05.95198 newsfe20.ams2> <4f36805f$0$4770$c3e8da3$12bcf670 news.astraweb.com> <M0wZq.30648$yg4.19549 newsfe14.ams2> <4f368eb1$0$2843$c3e8da3$9b4ff22a news.astraweb.com> <wOydnVCKU8H3VKvSnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d giganews.com> <4f36dfd9$0$9700$c3e8da3$1cbc7475 news.astraweb.com> <_rqdnZGAiNimeKvSnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d giganews.com> <4f36fc7b$0$2098$c3e8da3$a9097924 news.astraweb.com>
> Subject: Re: How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?
> Lines: 21
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
> Message-ID: <_eDZq.12704$2t3.6392 newsfe09.ams2>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.176.147.7
> X-Complaints-To: abuse demon.net
> X-Trace: newsfe09.ams2 1329004602 80.176.147.7 (Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:56:42 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:56:42 UTC
> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:56:39 -0000
>

[Dan[_12_]]

On 2/11/2012 5:40 PM, John Doe wrote:
> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>> Dan<B2431B aol.com> wrote:
>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> "Keith W"<keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Special forces are required to be tough and brave but not
>>>>>> suicidal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ever hear of "Japan"?
>>>>>
>>>> There's a huge difference between kamikaze missions and
>>>> special operations missions.
>>>
>>> Whether you think Japan's kamikazes were "special forces" or
>>> not is semantics. In my opinion, a kamikaze mission is a
>>> special force mission. It requires the same sort of extreme
>>> discipline. Maybe you are more familiar with World War II
>>> Japanese terminology, and whether they considered kamikazes to
>>> be special forces or not. Not that it matters with respect to
>>> the subject, but it might be interesting off-topic trivia to
>>> you.
>>>
>>>> Special operators plan to return, kamikazes don't. Kamikazes
>>>> don't need to be trained beyond the requirements needed to
>>>> operate their suicide weapons, special operators are trained
>>>> to do any mission asked of them etc.
>>>
>>> Including flight school? Sounds na‹ve to me.
>>>
>>>> But you probably knew all this and just want to be difficult.
>>>
>>> Here you are arguing the semantics of "special forces", acting
>>> like you've never seen or dished out difficulties before, in a
>>> group that is full of difficulties.
>>>
>>
>> Obviously you have no idea what special ops is.
>
> As much is your idea of what the subject is.
>
>> I spent 14 years in special ops.
>
> Cool. Are unmanned drone operators considered "special ops"?
>
>> Special ops involves all branches of the military. You brought
>> up flight school.
>
> I also brought up "special forces".
>
>> Yes, some special operators are flight crews.
>
> "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times..."
>
>> Ever heard of AFSOC? It's Air Force Special Operations Command.
>> There's more to special ops than the men at the "tip of the
>> spear."
>
> Cool. Then I would wonder why you have no comment on one of the
> most extraordinary aerobatic feats in modern times.
>
>> You insult special operators when you compare them to kamikazes.
>
> Would "special operators" include a joystick operator of an
> unmanned drone?! If so, I happily insult special operators.
>
> Big fat egotism is one of the problems with some of our current
> military and leaders. Even some who pretend to be religious seem
> to think that human life is not to be taken seriously. But in
> fact, someone who is willing to give up their life for a cause
> should be shown maximum respect. There is no greater sacrifice.
>
>> At the very least kamikazes plan on a one way mission, special
>> operators plan on returning alive. You may call it "semantics,"
>> the rest of the world calls it reality.
>
> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special forces
> is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When you search
> for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same time, you get
> over 1 million results. Looks like some of those results
> specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes. Makes
> sense to me.
>

When you have done some research what "special operations" means and
stop trying to cheapen it with canards about drones and suicide missions
feel free to get back to me. In the mean time I have had my fill of you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Steve Hix[_2_]]

In article >,
John Doe > wrote:

> "Keith W" > wrote:
>
> > John Doe wrote:
> >> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> [stuff snipped]
>
> >> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
> >> are nym-shifting.
> >
> > I post under my own name and always have.
>
> You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?

You need to get your usenet posting software serviced, Keith has been around
posting regularly for pretty long time.

[Keith W[_4_]]

John Doe wrote:
> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Doe wrote:
>>>
>>> Can you point to any place else where that distinction has been
>>> made prior to this time? "What makes kamikazes not special
>>> forces is the fact that kamikazes do not return alive." When
>>> you search for "kamikazes" and "special forces" at the same
>>> time, you get over 1 million results. Looks like some of those
>>> results specifically associate "special forces" with kamikazes.
>>> Makes sense to me.
>>>
>>
>> The reason is simple, the Japanese called Kamikaze's Special
>> Action Groups
>
> That is one of the lamest trolls I have seen on UseNet. A simple
> search for "Kamikaze's Special Action Groups" produces ZERO
> results.
>

If you must lie try a credible one.

While direct translations from Japanese to English are always
problematic the simple fact is the official Japanese designation
for what the west called kamikazes is usually translated as
either 'Special Attack Group' or 'Special Action Group'

Keith

[Daryl]

On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> risky?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.

After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.

I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
be possible.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Keith W[_4_]]

Daryl wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>> risky?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>>
>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>> Thanks.
>
> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
>
> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
> be possible.

You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.

Keith

[george152]

On 2/13/2012 6:19 AM, Keith W wrote:
> Daryl wrote:
>> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>>> risky?
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>>>
>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>> Thanks.
>> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
>> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
>> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
>> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
>> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
>>
>> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
>> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
>> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
>> be possible.
> You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
> after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.
As the saying goes "**** happens'

People walking across streets get hit by buses.
Painter falls off roof
BASE jumper hits something on the way down..
Little old lady slips in street and breaks her neck of femur..

[Keith W[_4_]]

George152 wrote:
> On 2/13/2012 6:19 AM, Keith W wrote:
>> Daryl wrote:
>>> On 2/9/2012 8:24 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>>>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>>>> risky?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>>>>
>>>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>>> Thanks.
>>> After viewing it and the runup to it, it's not a stunt that is
>>> that life threatening. He had a whole group of experts to help
>>> him all along the way. They knew, with certainie, that it would
>>> be successful. NO errors could be made though which could have
>>> had disastrous affects. He didn't make any and it was successful.
>>>
>>> I note that many of have stated that he is more than a little
>>> nuts. Not in this case. He is a craftsman and surrounds himself
>>> with other craftsmen that makes what appears to be impossible to
>>> be possible.
>> You do know that he had to be airlifted to hospital last month
>> after one of his carefully crafted stunts went wrong.
> As the saying goes "**** happens'
>
> People walking across streets get hit by buses.

Usually as a result of not looking before they step off the
footpath.

> Painter falls off roof

Usually because they are not using properly secured scaffolding

> BASE jumper hits something on the way down..

As a result of taking an uncessary risk - there seems to be a
pattern developing here.

Keith

[John Doe[_4_]]

Steve Hix <sehix NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:

> John Doe > wrote:
>> "Keith W" > wrote:
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> >> "Keith W" <keithnospoofsplease demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>> [stuff snipped]
>>
>> >> Difficult to tell by your posting history since apparently you
>> >> are nym-shifting.
>> >
>> > I post under my own name and always have.
>>
>> You have a grand total of 178 posts to UseNet?
>
> You need to get your usenet posting software serviced,

It's not rocket science.

> Keith has been around posting regularly for pretty long time.

When was the last time his e-mail ID changed? And the answer is, you
don't know. That's what the Google Groups archive uses.

[Vaughn]

On 2/12/2012 9:33 PM, John Doe wrote:

>
> When was the last time his e-mail ID changed? And the answer is, you
> don't know. That's what the Google Groups archive uses.

Not to mention that the Google Groups back database has been broken for
at least a year now, and Google has shown no inclination to fix it.

Vaughn

[[email protected][_2_]]

> > BASE jumper hits something on the way down..
>
> As a result of taking an uncessary risk - there seems to be a
> pattern developing here.
>
> Keith

Pot meet kettle. US glider pilots aren't in a statistically sound
position to criticize BASE jumpers right now...

[Keith W[_4_]]

wrote:
>>> BASE jumper hits something on the way down..
>>
>> As a result of taking an uncessary risk - there seems to be a
>> pattern developing here.
>>
>> Keith
>
> Pot meet kettle. US glider pilots aren't in a statistically sound
> position to criticize BASE jumpers right now...

If I were a US Glider pilot that might have some relevance
but as I am not I don't see it.

Keith

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 13, 1:45*pm, " >
wrote:

> Pot meet kettle. *US glider pilots aren't in a statistically sound
> position to criticize BASE jumpers right now...

I don't think that that is a particularly constructive way to address
that avenue of discussion.

As bad a couple of years as soaring has had for 2010 and 2011, I'd put
our safety numbers in incidents per hour of exposure or even incidents
per exposure cycle up against those of BASE jumping any day of the
week and twice on Sunday.

Thanks, Bob K.

[george152]

On 2/14/2012 11:10 AM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
> On Feb 13, 1:45 pm, >
> wrote:
>
>> Pot meet kettle. US glider pilots aren't in a statistically sound
>> position to criticize BASE jumpers right now...
> I don't think that that is a particularly constructive way to address
> that avenue of discussion.
>
> As bad a couple of years as soaring has had for 2010 and 2011, I'd put
> our safety numbers in incidents per hour of exposure or even incidents
> per exposure cycle up against those of BASE jumping any day of the
> week and twice on Sunday.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.

[Dean Markley]

On Feb 13, 5:30*pm, George152 > wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 11:10 AM, Bob Kuykendall wrote:> On Feb 13, 1:45 pm, >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Pot meet kettle. *US glider pilots aren't in a statistically sound
> >> position to criticize BASE jumpers right now...
> > I don't think that that is a particularly constructive way to address
> > that avenue of discussion.
>
> > As bad a couple of years as soaring has had for 2010 and 2011, I'd put
> > our safety numbers in incidents per hour of exposure or even incidents
> > per exposure cycle up against those of BASE jumping any day of the
> > week and twice on Sunday.
>
> > Thanks, Bob K.
>
> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience....
> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.

You are wrong. Aviation or at least commercial aviation is inherently
safe.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 13, 4:40*pm, Dean Markley > wrote:

> You are wrong. *Aviation or at least commercial aviation is inherently
> safe.

I don't necessarily agree with that. The phrase I use to describe
aviation is "statistically safe, but inherently unforgiving."

To me, the phrase "inherently safe" refers to an activity that has few
if any operational modes where constant alertness and engagement is a
prerequisite for continued survival. I think that something is
"inherently safe" when you can turn your back on it, go to sleep, and
expect to wake up an hour later in good health. That covers the vast
majority of aviation passengers, but certainly not pilots. As the old
joke goes, I want to die in my sleep like grandpa, not screaming in
terror like his passengers.

Thanks, Bob K.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 13, 2:30*pm, George152 > wrote:

> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience....
> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.

I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.

If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
am certainly open to changing my mind on this.

Thanks, Bob K.

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Feb 13, 8:05*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2:30*pm, George152 > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
> > numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
> > Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.
>
> I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
> I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
> less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.
>
> If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
> am certainly open to changing my mind on this.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

There were 2 BASE fatalities in the US last year. Soaring is far more
dangerous then we give it credit for.

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Feb 13, 5:27*pm, " >
wrote:

> There were 2 BASE fatalities in the US last year. *Soaring is far more
> dangerous then we give it credit for.

There's the thing: the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

You won't get me to disagree with the idea that soaring does not have
a substantial element of risk. We do have to recognize that the
majority of the risks in soaring can be mitigated by careful
operation, but I think that might be a discussion for a different
thread.

I have raced Formula road bikes, done an appreciable amount of rock
climbing, and flown sailplanes, sometimes competitively, for a little
less than forty years. In that time, soaring has been the single
greatest contributor to the number of memorial services I have
attended. So, yeah, I have an idea of how safe soaring is in both
objective and subjective terms.

To put those two BASE fatalities in perspective, we'd need to know how
many BASE jumpers were active in the sport for the year in the US, how
many jumps they made, and how much time they spent participating in
the sport.

Furthermore, to put the year in perspective we'd need to compare it
with other years, and also take into consideration factors that may
account for where it stands in comparison with other years.

And to put the US fatalities in perspective, you would need to compare
them with the rates for other countries in measurable terms such as
fatalities per cycle and per participant-hour.

Based on the reliable statistics I've seen so far, as inherently
unforgiving as soaring is, BASE jumping is around an order of
magnitude less forgiving. But again, if you have well-documented
statistics that show otherwise, I'm certainly open to revising my
assessment.

Thanks, Bob K.

[george152]

On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:05:56 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2:30*pm, George152 > wrote:
>
>> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
>> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
>> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.
>
> I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
> I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
> less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.
>
> If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
> am certainly open to changing my mind on this.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
Please get your story straight and don't post drunk.

[george152]

On 2/14/2012 7:03 PM, George152 wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:05:56 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, > wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
>>> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
>>> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.
>> I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
>> I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
>> less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.
>>
>> If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
>> am certainly open to changing my mind on this.
>>
>> Thanks, Bob K.
> Please get your story straight and don't post drunk.
Some-one posting playing silly buggers.

[Brad[_2_]]

On Feb 14, 11:13*am, George152 > wrote:
> On 2/14/2012 7:03 PM, George152 wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:05:56 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>
> >> On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, > *wrote:
>
> >>> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
> >>> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
> >>> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.
> >> I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
> >> I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
> >> less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.
>
> >> If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
> >> am certainly open to changing my mind on this.
>
> >> Thanks, Bob K.
> > Please get your story straight and don't post drunk.
>
> Some-one posting playing silly buggers.

George,

don't you have to run and hide from an in-coming asteroid?

better run along now and let the sailplane guys argue about sailplane
stuff, leave the base-jumping topics to a relevant forum.........ok?

Brad

[Dean Markley]

On Feb 13, 8:00*pm, Bob Kuykendall > wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:40*pm, Dean Markley > wrote:
>
> > You are wrong. *Aviation or at least commercial aviation is inherently
> > safe.
>
> I don't necessarily agree with that. The phrase I use to describe
> aviation is "statistically safe, but inherently unforgiving."
>
> To me, the phrase "inherently safe" refers to an activity that has few
> if any operational modes where constant alertness and engagement is a
> prerequisite for continued survival. I think that something is
> "inherently safe" when you can turn your back on it, go to sleep, and
> expect to wake up an hour later in good health. That covers the vast
> majority of aviation passengers, but certainly not pilots. As the old
> joke goes, I want to die in my sleep like grandpa, not screaming in
> terror like his passengers.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.

That's a reasonable clarification Bob. But I'd also argue that the
universe is constantly in opposition to your definition. After all,
there are comets, asteroids, etc. out there with our name on them.

[george152]

On 2/15/2012 9:01 AM, Brad wrote:
> On Feb 14, 11:13 am, > wrote:
>> On 2/14/2012 7:03 PM, George152 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:05:56 -0800 (PST), Bob Kuykendall wrote:
>>>> On Feb 13, 2:30 pm, > wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps you should consider the numbers of BASE jumpers against the
>>>>> numbers of solo glider pilots with a Silver 'C' badge level of experience...
>>>>> Aviation, no matter what or how we fly, is inherently dangerous.
>>>> I never said soaring was perfectly safe. I wouldn't say that, because
>>>> I'm pretty sure it's not true. All I asserted was that BASE jumping is
>>>> less safe than soaring in terms of per-hour or per-cycle exposure.
>>>> If you can cite peer-reviewed statistics that demonstrate otherwise, I
>>>> am certainly open to changing my mind on this.
>>>> Thanks, Bob K.
>>> Please get your story straight and don't post drunk.
>> Some-one posting playing silly buggers.
> George,
>
> don't you have to run and hide from an in-coming asteroid?
>
> better run along now and let the sailplane guys argue about sailplane
> stuff, leave the base-jumping topics to a relevant forum.........ok?
>
>
What part of wing suit eluded you ?
It's still flying

[Frank Whiteley]

On Feb 9, 8:24*pm, John Doe > wrote:
> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> risky?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.

http://xkcd.com/962/

[BruceGreeff]

Brilliant!

PS. Jeb was trying too hard. You can get that amount of adrenaline just
being a passenger in a minibus taxi in Cape Town...

On 2012/02/16 4:44 AM, Frank Whiteley wrote:
> On Feb 9, 8:24 pm, John > wrote:
>> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
>> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
>> risky?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>>
>> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>> Thanks.
>
> http://xkcd.com/962/

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771 & Std Cirrus #57

[Richard[_11_]]

On Feb 9, 9:24*pm, John Doe > wrote:
> I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know that
> gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is extremely
> risky?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFQc7VRJowk&feature=colike
>
> Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
> Thanks.

Here's the recent impact with Table Mountain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&feature=player_embedded

[John Doe[_4_]]

Richard <the.sargon gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's the recent impact with Table Mountain:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEFCQRwj28w&feature=player_embedded

I think it's the first time a wing suit flyer has struck an
earthly object and lived. No doubt the first time it's been
filmed. I am amazed that he was able to open the parachute before
striking the ground. That is as close to dying spectacularly as
you can get.

[Sam]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:03:38 -0000, Keith W wrote:

> As the pioneer Air mail pilot E. Hamilton Lee said
>
> Don't be a show-off.
> Never be too proud to turn back.
> There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.

Which he absconded from Terence McKenna who proffered:

"There are old shamans
There are bold shamans
But there are no old, bold shamans."

Suggesting a hint of bravery and good sense go hand in hand when hand
to mouth with psychoactive plants. :)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

John Doe > writes:

> Dave Doe <hard work.ok> wrote:
>
>>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> > I am not a pilot, but familiar with flight simulation. I know
>>> > that gliding limits your ability to control altitude. This is
>>> > extremely risky?
>>> >
>>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rFQc7VRJowk#t=80s
>>> >
>>> > Mainly curious about how difficult that was.
>>> > Thanks.
>
>> Nearly died a month or so ago, Jan 16th...
>> http://youtu.be/N2nlVUuDh_o
>
> This is about the trip to the hospital.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejFFy189xBM&feature=colike
>
> The fact that he didn't die and that he was able to deploy his
> shoot is incredible IMO. If he were clowning around, I might agree
> with the prior "unnecessary risks" comment. But he knows what the
> risks are. Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a
> better purpose but not as much fun.

Well, they're clearly not "necessary", given that he isn't doing
anything that has any bigger purpose than having fun. But yeah, he
shows some signs of understanding what he's doing, being prepared to do
HIS part in an emergency, and being pretty careful. Still, as you say,
he just got hurt pretty bad.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Daryl > writes:

> On 2/10/2012 9:12 PM, John Doe wrote:
>>> Our special forces take risks like that, perhaps for a better
>>> purpose
>>
>> No disrespect intended, it just depends on the politic in charge.
>
> Wrong, As dangerous as a Specops mission is, they are well thought
> out and executed and normally are highly successful.

I think the "politic in charge" remark was about "perhaps for a better
purpose".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[glidergeek]

On Feb 11, 8:29*am, John Doe > wrote:
> Daryl <dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
> > John Doe wrote:
> >>> Our special forces take risks like that
> > Wrong,
>
> Bull****.
>
> > As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> > they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> > successful.
>
> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
> > SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
> > They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> Are you in a movie?
>
> > but chance takers they aren't.
>
> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> > along the way and their people die in the process. *When it looks
> > almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> > and execution of the mission. *Almost all missions have been
> > successful.

Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.

[Daryl]

On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > wrote:
>> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
>>> Wrong,
>>
>> Bull****.
>>
>>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>>
>> You just contradicted yourself.
>>
>>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>>> successful.
>>
>> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>>
>>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>>
>> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
>> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>>
>>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>>
>> Are you in a movie?
>>
>>> but chance takers they aren't.
>>
>> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
>>> along the way and their people die in the process. When it looks
>>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
>>> and execution of the mission. Almost all missions have been
>>> successful.
>
> Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
> challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
> Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.

I didn't ask the original question. And as for going away, are
you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
it to force me to go away?



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[glidergeek]

On Mar 24, 10:59*pm, Daryl > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > *wrote:
> >> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> *wrote:
> >>> John Doe wrote:
> >>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
> >>> Wrong,
>
> >> Bull****.
>
> >>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> >> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> >>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> >>> successful.
>
> >> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
> >>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> >> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> >> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
> >>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> >> Are you in a movie?
>
> >>> but chance takers they aren't.
>
> >> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>
> >> --
>
> >>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> >>> along the way and their people die in the process. *When it looks
> >>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> >>> and execution of the mission. *Almost all missions have been
> >>> successful.
>
> > Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
> > challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
> > Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.
>
> I didn't ask the original question. *And as for going away, are
> you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
> it to force me to go away?
>
> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. *Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

Sorry Daryl I didn't mean you I meant the original poster. He came
onto a usernet hiding behind a false name and a keyboard asked a
controversial question with the intent of starting **** and and
succeeded well. Lookit he sucked in at least 70 responses. He's
smiling thinking what a bunch of looser gliderpilots.

[glidergeek]

On Mar 24, 10:59*pm, Daryl > wrote:
> On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > *wrote:
> >> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> *wrote:
> >>> John Doe wrote:
> >>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
> >>> Wrong,
>
> >> Bull****.
>
> >>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> >> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> >>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> >>> successful.
>
> >> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
> >>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> >> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> >> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
> >>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> >> Are you in a movie?
>
> >>> but chance takers they aren't.
>
> >> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>
> >> --
>
> >>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> >>> along the way and their people die in the process. *When it looks
> >>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> >>> and execution of the mission. *Almost all missions have been
> >>> successful.
>
> > Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
> > challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
> > Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.
>
> I didn't ask the original question. *And as for going away, are
> you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
> it to force me to go away?
>
> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. *Tons of Military shows and
> programs.

Sorry Daryl I didn't mean you I meant the "John Doe" The little guy
hiding behind the keyboard and the alias. He came onto this site with
intention of starting **** and didn't like that he didn't get the
answer he wanted. He sucked all he could into this with a stupid
question.

[Daryl]

On 3/25/2012 9:06 AM, glidergeek wrote:
> On Mar 24, 10:59 pm, > wrote:
>> On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > wrote:
>>>> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> wrote:
>>>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
>>>>> Wrong,
>>
>>>> Bull****.
>>
>>>>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>>
>>>> You just contradicted yourself.
>>
>>>>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
>>>>> successful.
>>
>>>> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>>
>>>>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>>
>>>> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
>>>> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>>
>>>>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>>
>>>> Are you in a movie?
>>
>>>>> but chance takers they aren't.
>>
>>>> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>>
>>>> --
>>
>>>>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
>>>>> along the way and their people die in the process. When it looks
>>>>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
>>>>> and execution of the mission. Almost all missions have been
>>>>> successful.
>>
>>> Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
>>> challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
>>> Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.
>>
>> I didn't ask the original question. And as for going away, are
>> you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
>> it to force me to go away?
>>
>> --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
>> for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
>> programs.
>
> Sorry Daryl I didn't mean you I meant the "John Doe" The little guy
> hiding behind the keyboard and the alias. He came onto this site with
> intention of starting **** and didn't like that he didn't get the
> answer he wanted. He sucked all he could into this with a stupid
> question.

Not a prob. Misunderstandings do happen.

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Dean]

On Mar 25, 11:01*am, glidergeek > wrote:
> On Mar 24, 10:59*pm, Daryl > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > *wrote:
> > >> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> *wrote:
> > >>> John Doe wrote:
> > >>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
> > >>> Wrong,
>
> > >> Bull****.
>
> > >>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> > >> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> > >>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> > >>> successful.
>
> > >> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
> > >>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> > >> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> > >> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
> > >>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> > >> Are you in a movie?
>
> > >>> but chance takers they aren't.
>
> > >> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics.
>
> > >> --
>
> > >>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> > >>> along the way and their people die in the process. *When it looks
> > >>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> > >>> and execution of the mission. *Almost all missions have been
> > >>> successful.
>
> > > Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
> > > challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
> > > Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it.
>
> > I didn't ask the original question. *And as for going away, are
> > you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
> > it to force me to go away?
>
> > --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
> > for free movies and Nostalgic TV. *Tons of Military shows and
> > programs.
>
> Sorry Daryl I didn't mean you I meant the original poster. *He came
> onto a usernet hiding behind a false name and a keyboard asked a
> controversial question with the intent of starting **** and and
> succeeded well. Lookit he sucked in at least 70 responses. He's
> smiling thinking what a bunch of looser gliderpilots.

Actually, he sparked a very good discussion when you filter and ignore
the normal garbage.

[glidergeek]

On Mar 25, 1:12*pm, Dean > wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:01*am, glidergeek > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 24, 10:59*pm, Daryl > wrote:
>
> > > On 3/24/2012 11:16 PM, glidergeek wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 11, 8:29 am, John > *wrote:
> > > >> Daryl<dhunt nospami70west3.com> *wrote:
> > > >>> John Doe wrote:
> > > >>>>> Our special forces take risks like that
> > > >>> Wrong,
>
> > > >> Bull****.
>
> > > >>> As dangerous as a Specops mission is,
>
> > > >> You just contradicted yourself.
>
> > > >>> they are well thought out and executed and normally are highly
> > > >>> successful.
>
> > > >> Well thought out and risky = difficult.
>
> > > >>> SF is rarely a bunch of hotdogs.
>
> > > >> You mean like on TV? Of course not. Then again, Jeb Corliss
> > > >> doesn't use a stuntman or props.
>
> > > >>> They know their job and do it probably beyond human capability
>
> > > >> Are you in a movie?
>
> > > >>> but chance takers they aren't.
>
> > > >> You are playing semantics. I'm not interested in playing semantics..
>
> > > >> --
>
> > > >>> When it appears that it's impossible means they failed somewhere
> > > >>> along the way and their people die in the process. *When it looks
> > > >>> almost supernatural in the success, it's from superior planning
> > > >>> and execution of the mission. *Almost all missions have been
> > > >>> successful.
>
> > > > Then you should go away instead of coming here if your objective is to
> > > > challenge people if you don't get satisfaction to your question.
> > > > Likewise if you don't like the answer to your question don't ask it..
>
> > > I didn't ask the original question. *And as for going away, are
> > > you going to grab my left wrist that I am typing with and wrench
> > > it to force me to go away?
>
> > > --http://tvmoviesforfree.com
> > > for free movies and Nostalgic TV. *Tons of Military shows and
> > > programs.
>
> > Sorry Daryl I didn't mean you I meant the original poster. *He came
> > onto a usernet hiding behind a false name and a keyboard asked a
> > controversial question with the intent of starting **** and and
> > succeeded well. Lookit he sucked in at least 70 responses. He's
> > smiling thinking what a bunch of looser gliderpilots.
>
> Actually, he sparked a very good discussion when you filter and ignore
> the normal garbage.

Dean truthfully anybody that has the physically strength and hand eye
coordination could do that. Would anybody do what Jeb does? obviously
not and I've got both my knee caps have never broken my legs and have
made it to 59 1/2 y/o. I'm a low time pilot 2500 hrs if each "wing
suit" flight is only 6 minutes at longest he will have to make, check
my math 25,000 flights to have as much fun as I've had. but I'll bet
he's made more money doing what he does than I've spent on what I like
doing.