mr2mk1g

Just read "BASE 66". It's not a book for hints and tips but if you're merely after a nice (if short) read along the lines of a novel then its a good true story. It does move quickly along to BASE from skydiving but it's a good read for anyone.

I think that pdf is a con... doesn't have the right feel for a Canon pdf.... the "canon" logo is blurry... the pictures of the camera itself are identical to old designs... the jog wheel has been abandoned by canon in favor of a set of compass point buttons... it's hosted by some guy called "alex"... think someone's having a laugh.

Morning all. Interesting read over the last couple of pages since I sulked home (just kidding juanesky). I thought of one example of an American suicide bomber. You're gonna laugh at this, but I actually think it's a serious enough point. Think Independence Day... yes the Hollywood film. Crop-duster guy who flies his plane into the alien ship as a bomb... yup, a suicide bomber. And in the film he's hailed as a hero. Yes I know it's just a film about aliens... but the point is he's hailed as a hero and American society accepts that as normal without so much of a blink of an eye. Indeed had it been real he probably would be hailed as a hero. I’m sure many people would empathize with his plight. I could certainly imagine myself doing the same thing if I were to find myself in a similar situation (ok so aliens, Smith and Goldblum wouldn't necessarily be required). I agree with both sides of the discussion that's been put over the last few pages. Yes there are three kinds of insurgents in Iraq - that was a good post. Yes the suicide bombers are different from the American revolutionaries. But I think Billvon isn't just spouting "leftist nonsense" as I'm sure many here would define his posts when he says that US citizens could be capable of suicide bombings themselves. I think there probably is a point where US troops... indeed troops belonging to any army, and indeed citizens of any nation, would turn to whatever tactics they could to defeat the enemy. I would not be surprised if that excluded suicide bombing of civilian targets... but then I can't rule it out as the logical plenary of the concept. Looking back to the events which started this thread... we can see that we have in the past been willing to bomb civilians quite openly. I that know now we would not consider such terrible acts unless we were under great peril... but what if we were in such a position? That situation is easy to consider, because our governments have done it for us already. We can resort to MAD and destroy our enemy's population if ours is under threat. Again, if the stakes are high enough, we are willing to take that step, even merely in retribution. I cannot see why some would not be willing to perform similar acts as suicide missions, the film proves society would hail them as heroes, and we know that our military doctrine extends to attacks on civilians if necessary. All that is required is for us to put those two concepts together. I have little doubt that were any nation under enough of a threat, such steps cannot be excluded. Now I think this is merely a comment on the human condition as a whole, not on any one nation. I think some of you here are being a little short sighted to say the least when you are taking similar comments by others as direct attacks on the United States. Don't be so silly. The US is only made up of people... some people are willing to do things like this when things they hold dear (such as their families, their way of life, their nation) are under great peril. I think that is simply humanity, irrespective of where that particular human happens to have been spawned. I think there are a great many people who would quite willingly give their own life in a suicide attack to vanquish an enemy. It matters not what their nationality is, their creed, or their colour. I think the Independence Day movie highlighted quite adequately that a suicide attack by a US serviceman (albeit effectively a militiaman), can certainly seen as a heroic act when it is done for the greater good. Yes there is a moral question about applying those attacks to civilians... but that hasn't bothered us in the past, and if the circumstances were that bad again in the future, I would be surprised if it would bother us then. And no, I can't believe I just used a friking film to make a serious point... but I guess it is in reality the audience's reaction to the event in that film which is the actual indicator as to the regard in which society would hold an American suicide bomber.

Cheers. I always regretted not giving myself a pronounceable name on here. Everyone screws it up. It's always "mr2whatever" or "mrg12k" or if I'm speaking to them in person "m. r. [tail off voice while mumbling]". Now I'm just "the other guy"? I'm off home to sulk, sit in a corner and rock back and forth.

Now those are more valid as arguments. You should try to focus on and expand those and abandon any which don't hold water.

A fair question I suppose. Lets look at the situation as a whole. Japan was occupying large swaths of China. Approx 200,000 civilians were dieing per week in this area. They also occupied large areas of the British Empire in the east although this was rapidly being recovered during fierce jungle fighting with the British and Indian armies. There were also more than half a million westerner civilians interned in Japanese camps who were dieing at a significant rate, not to mention the many thousands of military prisoners who were also dieing off rapidly. This all meant winning the war quickly was of concern (and that's before you even get into the financial cost of running a world war). Therefore simply fighting our way up the coast of china and destroying the Japanese army in Asia over the next year or two while we waited out the starvation of mainland Japan was not exactly a practicable proposition... hell it might never have happened at all. Besides which, we have to consider the domestic political situation within Japan. While it is true that certain civilian members of the wartime government wished to sue for peace and indeed made covert moves towards contacting the Allies in this respect, the government as a whole was dominated by a significant militaristic faction. The military as a whole was completely opposed to any idea of surrender and the exerted a significant amount of power within Japan. Remember it was only 50 years since the Maji restoration when Japan was an entirely feudal, military ruled nation. The government simply didn't wish to surrender and wouldn't have done without a major trigger. It took the bombs before this state of affairs moved on, and then only after direct intervention from the Emperor. If the bombs had not fallen the only other thing which could have precipitated the mustering of enough domestic political will to surrender would have been the wholesale occupation of a large proportion of Japan. Japan simply didn't believe that could happen. They believed the Kamikaze would save them again as it had from the Mongols centuries before. They were probably right to a good degree, any invasion attempt would have been exceptionally bloody. Now remember that a full mainland invasion wasn't even scheduled till March 1946 and even this date was dependant first on the successful invasion of the southern island tip during the winter of 1945. We can therefore see that if you remove the bombs from the equation you have a Japan that does not want to surrender, does not believe it can be defeated on home soil, and is currently killing millions while we wait. That is why a swift invasion of Japanese soil was necessary without the bombs. There are many arguments against the use of Fat-Man and Little-Boy, but I'm affraid that the contention that Japan was defeated and there was no need to invade certainly aren't among them.

find a different coach.

Why on earth do you think Japan's military forces were crippled? That statement has no basis in historical accuracy. Yes their fleet and their air forces had been decimated and British forces were rapidly pushing up through continental Asia... but their army was still a hugely powerful fighting force, especially on mainland Japan. Kaiten, Shinyo and Kamikaze pilots would have inflicted crippling losses on any approaching fleets before anyone ever stepped foot on the island. Occupying mainland Japan through conventional arms would have taken years and hundreds of thousands of lives. Japan was far from beaten.

I studied evolution at collage. I was taught by a guy whose surname was "Bates". He had a Masters degree.

I attended a seminar at the BPA AGM a couple of years ago. They asked Olav about freeflying and he said: "'Freeflying' (tm) is a registered traidmark and every time you use the term 'Freeflying' (tm) you owe me $5."

and skydivers and forum posters

yeah... I wanted to continue that limb of the convo... the number of digits on that thing is really odd... never mind.

no - I'd put religious people much higher on the list than religion itself. I don't think thats a purely academic distinction either... I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong or evil about religion per se... but a great many followers of religion do have a lot to answer for... as indeed do followers of atheism. (ie they have done evil in the name of religion/non-religion. Twist that either way you like - that organised religion/non-religion is evil or that man has twisted the word of God... as you wish... but to answer your question... No, not in my opinion.

If your friend isn't an experienced skydiver the chances of them actually having a clue about how safe or dangerous the DZ you went to are very very slim indeed. There are so many myths out there which people wholeheartedly believe in that non-skydivers are an amazing wealth of complete and utter nonsense when it comes to how much the "know" about this sport. As above either do your own legwork or post here which DZ this is all about. If the place has a bad reputation (which is very rare and quite unlikely)someone will more than likely let you know about it. Have fun in your new found sport. Soon enough you will be able to laugh at your friends when they tell you it's dangerous to go through a cloud because you won't be able to breath through your skin in freefall any more.

There is something seriously wrong with that dog on a genetic level (I'm not saying that as hyperbole, I actually mean it). Look at its dew claw on its right fore-leg (basically the vestigial dog version of our thumb). There's supposed to be one... there are three! You just don't get three claws from old age or being a fugly dog. There's something really wrong with the thing. I can count 7 claws clearly visible on the right fore-leg... that means 7 digits... that has to be some kind of genetic abnormality.

and Belgians (ok, ok, I dated a Belgian girl for a year or so, there's nothing wrong with Belgians)

[cough] the moon doesn't have anything to do with evolutionary theory... Can't help but laugh.

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking... but try this. Watch a big way or a formation from the ground. It's quite easy to do if you concentrate on them all the way from exit... so long as your eyesight is ok. They'll break off and track away from each other at arround 4 or 5 grand or so. Watch how far they go from one another. You can really shift when you track hard and watching from the ground can help you figure out just how far you have the potential to move up there. Athough as I said, I'm not 100% that's exactly what you're asking... I hope it will help.

"OH yes it is!... It's behind you! It's behind you!" Laugh and point Wendy, laugh and point.

I'm just going to adopt your tactic of laughing and pointing. These threads are just getting too funny. Sangiro should insist on psych screening before he lets people sign up.

The plot thickens. Come to think of it... sometimes when I arrive at the DZ my alti is showing a couple of hundred feet. Obviously the DZ hasn't gained altitude... someone must have gone through my kit while I've been away from the DZ and set my alti wrong so that I'll go in! It's a conspiracy I tell you.

I don't know man. All I know is my pilot chute is getting collapsed at some time between extraction and landing... that HAST to be sabotage! You should all check yours too just in case.

You're all missing the point here. Someone is tampering with my pilot chute while I'm under my canopy!! This can't be a problem with my kit – it's happened to me on at least 5 or 6 different rigs now. With each one I've got down from my jump to find my PC has been collapsed. That could cause a mal if I didn't catch it each time. Given how often this has happened to me I wouldn't be surprised if it had happened to others too. I urge you; check your pilot chutes after you land. If they've been collapsed, immediately suspect sabotage! Someone is probably after you just like they are after me!

An open verdict means they don't know. The Coroner could not prove it was suicide and since there is a presumption against returning a verdict of suicide only clear evidence would have sufficed. As the Coroner also found no evidence whatsoever that a third party was involved, he could not return a verdict of unlawful killing either. The "final word" on the matter is therefore "dunno" and probably always shall be. The police produced a report for the Coroner which is presented in open court. This is often persuasive but how much weight is placed upon it is a matter for the Coroner. In their report the Police stated that they had concluded that it was suicide. They provided the evidence upon which they had reached that conclusion. The Coroner however basically found that their report was based on significantly flawed evidence and contained rather poor logic. Sadly this did not make it into the papers at the time. I personally would have been rather more critical of the police than the Coroner was... he certainly had cause to be. In this case thankfully the cops didn't get the final say because whoever wrote their final report was a complete Muppet. Not that their conclusion wasn't right... I personally don't know... it could very well have been... but they would have been right by accident rather than through some kind of fantastic detective work. I guess one day I'll explain it all to the community. I wasn't going to post anything at the time because reporters were still sniffing round and I didn't want to end up quoted in a paper.

The Coroner however entered an open verdict.