How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?

On 2/11/2012 11:14 AM, John Doe wrote:
Daryldhunt nospami70west3.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:
Daryldhunt 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.

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...etailpage&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=ejFFy...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

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

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 Doehard work.ok wrote:
John Doejdoe 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...etailpage&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=ejFFy...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

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

On 2/11/2012 3:38 PM, John Doe wrote:
DanB2431B 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

Dan B2431B aol.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:
DanB2431B 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: 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

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

"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: 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

On 2/11/2012 5:40 PM, John Doe wrote:
DanB2431B aol.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:
DanB2431B 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