Leaderboard

Yep -- I have two words for you: Abu Ghraib. How many of the personnel who took part in the blatantly illegal acts there looked back and were appalled and disgusted with themselves? We can look from the outside and say unequivocally that those actions were so far outside the realm of OK that how could they not have known? But 1) you will likely find that one or two whose own "Overton window" is far afield of what is acceptable, and 2) those others who are easily convinced that they are right. These days, with the influence of Fox, OANN, etc., the second group is larger and easier to convince.

Former 82nd Airborne Paratrooper of the year and recreational skydiver. He spoke at Cooper Con last year and I’ve done a few shows with him on my channel.

Actually, they are intended to be used in the event of an emergency. And they are designed to suit their purpose when they are used. Here you are hypocritically conflating and misrepresenting my statements. Back when it was being discussed, I said that the people procuring the rigs probably didn't know what they were looking for and just got what they could get their hands on. My more recent statements were a hypothetical that a lot of laymen would understand that there are differences, and if you put the two in front of them, they could probably guess which is which. This part you have correct. Here you are intentionally misrepresenting with intent to discredit. I did not say 'any idiot', I said 'many people'. Hypocrite. I think just recently you have Mike Davis and me... That would actually lean towards indicating the opposite. And you have gotten some feedback. You just reject it because it apparently doesn't conform to your 'confirmation bias'. Perhaps someone who apparently spends most of their life in front of a computer screen just can't grasp the mentality of people who go outside and do risky adventurous things. Sowwy I huwt youw feewings; yes you are ignorant on parachutes and the type of people who do such things; no I wasn't because that's not what I said; no I'm not; ya kinda got me there, minor detail corrected; no, I commented on that; and yes I did, several times. Because that's what they gave him. Black Death, Maynard - that's why. ----------------- Sir, you are not orders of magnitude more intelligent than everyone else. You do not have the market cornered on logic and reason. But your arrogance is astounding. You should really consider you recent behavior, going back at least to your fairly recent arguments about how the money got rounded, and everything since. It is really disappointing. I don't want to say that you're losing your credibility, but you seem to be intentionally wadding it up and throwing it away.

The MAGA idiots complaining about the style and content of Newsoms tweets is gold. I'd like to think they are so close to getting it but sadly I suspect that little awareness is outside of their tiny little minds.

And what is your parachuting experience sir? Thumbing through a book - a book I referred you to - , finding outlier circumstances and using them to try to discredit the predominant circumstances? Umm, no. I explained the fallacies in your generalizing "bailout rig" - and I am not wrong. Some of the canopies that might have been in those rigs are steerable. Indeed, I believe the packing card we have a photo of from one of Hayden's rigs lists the canopy as a 26' conical manufactured in 1957. I have landed a 26' conical manufactured in 1956 and it was steerable. I am not wrong in that the mains of that era did not have a whole lot better performance than the reserves. I have jumped most if not all of them - 35' T-10's, 28' flat circulars, Para Commanders, Piglets, 26' conical reserve, 24' whatever-it-was reserve with 4-line release, and whatever else that I can't remember. What have you jumped? Yes, the military did have freefall rigs, but the majority of military parachuting in that day was static-line paratroopers. Ironically, if Cooper was aware of or a participant in the military freefall operations you cite, then he was far more knowledgeable a parachutist than any of you want to give him credit for. I made my first 40 or so jumps on the exact type of gear that Cooper was requesting. I am thoroughly familiar with the type of bailout rigs he received. I have known countless pilots who wore them. I have put them on countless people, including my own mom, taking observer rides and briefed them on their use. And you? You seem to want to paint observer rigs as some sort of medieval torture device that if the opening doesn't kill you, the landing surely will, and something that only an uninformed moron would jump. Not so. God only knows how many jumpers, pilots, crewmen... have landed those things and come out of it unscathed. I used to know a guy who jumped one of those reserves as a main because it was cheap and he liked to pull really low. I stand behind all the statements I have made about gear as not wrong. The only thing I got wrong was I overlooked the military's preponderance to triple document everything, thus their mains having packing cards. And I accurately described the difference in why those cards are there vs reserve packing cards. Indeed, many sport jumpers of that day used military surplus gear. The packing card pockets on their rigs would be empty. I did, repeatedly, answer your question. And the answer is the variable I described. I don't know who Mike Davis is, apparently an experienced jumper. Ryan says that he said he would jump it, and you dismissed it out of hand, as though you know better than the man himself what he would do. I also said that if I was in Cooper's position on the way to Reno, I would jump it too. I would be easy to take umbrage at that and tell you to take a flying flip at a rolling doughnut yourself, But I'm really just kind of befuddled. What the hell happened to you? I've been reading your posts for a long time, and I've had nothing but respect for you. I think everyone here regards you as a thorough, detailed researcher. But you used to be objective, and interested in truth. But now, you'e caustic, stubborn, and quite frankly, an asshole. You have strong confirmation bias, you are at times dishonest, you personally attack and try to discredit people you disagree with, and you change your position mid-argument just to disagree. All things that you have accused others of. That makes you a hypocrite. Seriously, what happened to you? Maybe you just need to step away from the keyboard for a moment, go outside, get some fresh air, exercise, and circulation.

It seems to me that a problem with the argument that soldiers take an oath to not obey unlawful orders is that it requires everybody to be able to discern an unlawful order. If several soldiers are ordered to execute a group of unarmed prisoners, and 19 soldiers refuse the order but 1 obeys the unarmed prisoners will still end up dead. You need 100% compliance. An order as extreme as "shoot all the prisoners" may be obviously illegal if it comes from some sergeant, but something less extreme may not be so obvious even if a court were to eventually rule that the act was illegal, and even an extreme act may be of uncertain legality if it comes from the president. This Supreme Court seems to be taking the position that the President can do anything, even if it violates the plain language of the constitution, and they are immune from prosecution. In the case of birthright citizenship , for example, their ruling was that people have to comply for now, and maybe eventually they will get around to deciding if the executive order was lawful. If your career depends on following lawful orders, and the "lawful" part is ambiguous, there will always be people (lots of people) who will choose to follow the order.

Our Second Amendment is a misinterpreted joke that any 3rd grader without a dog in the fight would likely read more correctly. No sane person has ever explained to me why, in this case of Constitutional originalism ONLY, tossing out the first two parts and keeping the second two parts was obviously what the framers intended. So to satisfy your curiosity, I take exception to certain interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Hi Keith, Re: service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions. I well remember that is what we were told. However, IMO 99 44/100% of service members simply do not know just what those are. How many Gi's have you known who knew what was in the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards AND/OR the Geneva Conventions. Jerry Baumchen PS) Let me add, that I served when Ike & JFK were in office. Nothing like the crazy that is there now.

Absolutely. When I was in school - health education also included sex education. .