The111

Many suits are cut in a way that does not allow a straight arm (more accurately, a straight arm AND a wing which is 100% extended). I mentioned it with illustrations here. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Right. He says that your words seem presumptuous and disrespectful, so you respond "I hope you die like your dead friend," and somehow you think he's the prick? This whole thread belongs in the trash dump. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It should be common for wingsuiters to exit in a way that the pilot will do the same jump run he always does for any jumper.

6. buy beer www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I can forgive the mistake, but calling Journey crappy? You take that back sir. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

For the most part, that is correct, although you are using a slightly less technical definition of "weight," referred to here as "weight2." According to the more technical definition, "weight1," your weight is the same throughout the entire skydive, even when not at terminal. It is only related to gravitation and mass. The salient point is that under either definition, your helmet does have weight at terminal velocity (which is what most skydivers mean when they say "in freefall" since that describes 95% of a jump). If anybody doubts that, have a discussion with one of the big names in camera flying about what it feels like to wear one of those 40-lb Hollywood film reel camera helmets in freefall. Yes, the openings are obviously worrisome, but even the freefall is a huge challenge, due to the weight of the setup. My camera helmet "only" weighs about a quarter of that, but I can sense its weight in freefall very easily. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

In freefall it should be about 0 Have you ever been in freefall? Sorry, but this is so completely wrong it sounds like something a whuffo would say. You ever hear of weight belts? They still have a weight in freefall. So do you. So does your helmet. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

redwing120 www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I don't remember that at all. Even when the P1 first came out, every wingsuit instructor I knew agreed it was suitable for FFC's. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

So when you said beginner, you didn't mean beginner to mean what you think beginner means? Look, if you think beginner means two different things in the space of two different posts, then how is anyone else supposed to know what specific meaning of beginner you or Squirrel are choosing to use at that particular moment? Bottom line, if Squirrel say that the Swift is a suit for beginners it is either stupid or deliberately disingenuous to say that it was not intended for first flight... especially since Squirrel also say "This is a suit that is simple enough to put your first jumps on,". That's not semantics, that's plain english. Fortunately, I remember hearing about this big book that tells people what words mean. It's called a dicto-something, I can't remember exactly. But I did look up the word that nobody seems to be able to agree on a meaning for. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beginner be·gin·ner noun a person who is beginning something or doing something for the first time Seems pretty straightforward to me, and it seems like it does include FFC's.

Not quite. https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=10201464422674131 Still a nifty idea. Yeah... 1) EXIF is not a smoking gun (anyone can change it) 2) Facebook strips EXIF (as you said). Also, programs like Photoshop usually strip EXIF when doing a standard "render for web" operation, just to save on file size I'd assume. None of the photos on my website have any EXIF remaining (if I cared enough I could change this). 3) I don't think crawling all Facebook photos is a realistic goal, as the URL's to FB photos, while publicly accessible, are not publicly indexed... or in non-technical terms, I doubt that the site referenced in the OP can do what it claims (wrt FB photos at least). It is a feasible task with "the internet" in general, but a massive one, one that would require the site to maintain its own index of every photo on the internet, and every EXIF identifier found. That is not a task for the faint at heart or the average startup. But yeah... it is a clever and intriguing idea for sure! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Depends how loud it is flapping. That's actually the truth though. For the most part my sequence is similar to what has been posted already: 1) arm zips 2) leg zips 3) collapse slider 4) stow slider 5) release brakes However, if the slider is flapping really loud and annoying me, then I will collapse it before doing the leg zips. There's really no reason to do either one first though. Neither is safety critical... in most modern suits with wide legwings, you could land without doing either.

Hey, you're intruding on our super important™ argument about physics. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I don't...you did...you wrote an incorrect statement about weight. But lovely to see your eternal need for conflict hasn't faded... Neither of you are confused or incorrect, there is just an inexact definition of glide ratio here. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Suggestion: Low light: high ISO, low shutter speed High light: low ISO, high shutter speed There are no magic numbers.

Sad that someone would pass up what sounds like a cool opportunity because of the actions of anonymous internet trolls who have no relation to the OP at all. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I am sure if anybody has the skill to pull it off, Medusa does. But from what I remember of that video it is lacking a level indicator. Those who know the site better can probably deduce level from the backdrop, to some degree of accuracy. Horizon is the best level indicator though. :-) But you're right, it does meet the "static/static" requirement. Tandem canopy not static.

He didn't spend enough time in small suits before upsizing to a mattress. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

POV like this can never show absolute motion clearly. The schemes suggested by Jarno and hjumper (and countless others in the past) are all very reasonable and pretty much the only way to do this. Outside, fixed lens, low distortion. Some kind of reference line fixed in the camera frame which provides a known indication of "level" over a distance. The flyer passes through the frame in a range such that the camera and reference provide the proof. To be clear, I'm not expressing any doubt about the physical possibility of this... just being objective about how to analyze video.

Neither definitive nor LOLable. The key to proving absolute motion in any direction is a static reference. The camera and backdrop here are anything but static. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Video of Stoney's famous stunt at 4:12 here for reference. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I just watched that part low-res on a crappy connection and small screen... almost looked like all 3 of them did the same stunt! www.WingsuitPhotos.com