How difficult, Jeb Corliss wing suit stunt?

Vaughn vaughnsimon gmail.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

you are nym-shifting.

Oh?

Nym-shifting prevents others from knowing your angle on things. It
also prevents others from ignoring you, until the reader opens
your message and recognizes you. Any UseNet regular should already
know the difference between nym-shifting and using a handle.

May we assume that your name is really John Doe then?

It's called a "handle". The point is whether your persona is
understandable or recognizable, not whether you would like
everybody in the world to call you by your real name.

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.

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...VRJowk#t=80 s

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.

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

"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"?

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

On 2/11/2012 8:29 AM, 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? 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.

On 2/11/2012 10:10 AM, John Doe wrote:

Jeb Corliss is not just flying over terrain that is declining at
least as fast as his descent rate.

True, he is apparently deliberately diving faster that his best L/D
speed. This maneuvers him down towards the rock face while at the same
time allowing him sufficient kinetic energy to escape the declining
terrain by simply pulling up.

What appears to me to be the
very difficult part is that he flies within 10 feet of the ground.

One could argue if that's difficult or simply foolhardy. I will agree
that it's probably difficult to do it regularly without finally having
an accident.

What appears to me to be
unusually difficult about his stunt is that he has no escape
route.

Not necessarily true if he planned the stunt correctly. As long as he
maintains sufficient maneuvering energy and the terrain keeps moving
down rapidly, all he needs to do is pull up. He will simultaneously
slow down and move away from the rock face. (Trading kinetic energy for
potential energy) (See above.)

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, 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 dhunt 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 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: 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=

"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.

--











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

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.