The111

When I had about 30 jumps someone showed me how to hold the bag between my knees (standing) and walk toward the container as I stow my lines. I still do this. No need to drag anything... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Just to clarify, you mean use your legs (more than your arms) for the turn, right? The few turns I've done have been with my upper body and I did notice a huge dive, kind of fun although against the goal of flying long. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I won't comment on your grammar or spelling, but I will point out that people should be literate LONG before college. I'm pretty sure I'm as literate now as I was at 12 years old. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Before I got my own gear, I rented... there was one rig I liked to rent and for like 3 weekends in a row, I would check the pin after getting it from the DZ and it needed the loop replaced - I guess someone else renting it was being rough on it. I got my own Vector III (new) and have put about 130 jumps on it... the closing loop still looks almost brand new, I just had to tighten it once near the beginning. I'm very gentle with it. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

OMG, nobody believes me that the number 111 pops up everywhere in my life (hence the name). First try on this game: 111.1. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Not intending to get too off-topic or anger anyone, but... Near any statement having to do with "wrong" or "right" is an opinion. It would be redundant to add a "just my opinion" disclaimer every time. The above is just my opinion. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Just my own experience: My exit weight is about the same (190 lb) and I jump the canopies in question. I landed the PDR 160 @ 1.18psf on jump 50 and 210, stood it up on 50 and dropped a knee on 210 only because I was very weak from the hard reserve opening. It does flare quite a bit different than the Spectre and I did quite a few practice flares both times I had it over my head. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I can't get the video on that page to work (I'm at work), but the picture on that page looks very hard to believe... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I actually thought that was pretty cool... wonder what the real name for the sport is and where I can get more info... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Here is someone else doing the same thing, regular Gore-Tex suit according to the page (I don't even know what that is... ) I was told this person clears it by a larger margin, but honestly it looks like the camera perspective is just forward more than down, it still looks ridiculously close. I'd love to see either video from a side angle. In my mind this might be more crazy than Loic's famous Verbier flight... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Back to my little heads/tails coin example. By the same logic, couldn't you say the motion of air molecules is not random either? Sure, it's incredibly more complex than a flipping coin, but look at one molecule - it is being caused to move along its "random" path by all of the other molecules running into it. What set them into motion? Something. What set that something into motion? Something else. Etc. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Hmm, both very good points. I stand corrected. Which makes me wonder... the "heads or tails" coinflip is a traditional "example" of a statistical 50/50 chance, which is why I used it. Obviously it was just shown to be more than that. Can someone think of a better example of random statistical chance? I could say, put 100 tickets in a hat, shake the hat up, reach in and see what you get, but that doesn't work as an example, because that was physically determined by the mechanics of the "shaking up the hat" process and the movements of your hand while entering the shaken up hat and reaching for a ticket. The only thing I can think of is a random number generator for a computer, and I honestly don't know precisely how those work... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Flip a coin... heads or tails? What was the cause? I realize the analogy fails on some levels and I'm not really taking a side in the argument (typical of me), but I am offering a counterpoint.

Dude, did I imply anywhere that I believe "goddidit"? I did state that to some (myself included), there are signs that seem to point to intelligent design in the world around me. But there are also signs that point to other possibilities. Your statement about the honesty of an "I don't know approach"... you have no idea how many times I have said those EXACT WORDS! I thought I already put it in this thread but I guess I didn't, though I did PM it to someone today. I've never heard anyone else say it the same way, but you used literally almost the exact same words I always use. The whole thing started years ago when one of those "street preachers" on my college campus was yelling at everyone, as I walked by he shouted at me and told me I needed to be more humble. I asked him if he realized the irony of his statement. He's sitting here claiming to know the answers to all the philosophical questions that have plagued man since the beginning of time. Wouldn't it be more humble and *honest* to admit that you can't know? Since then that's the stance I've taken. I think it is possible and maybe even probable there is a "god", and it might be nice, but the most honest thing I can say is "I don't know". www.WingsuitPhotos.com

The answer to almost every why provokes another why. Sometimes the secondary why is also able to be answered by a physical explanation. But eventually, the why's lead to a philosophical why, which as you stated, can't be answered. I think that a lot of religions seek to answer these unanswerable questions though. As far as Heisenberg though (what I vaguely remember from high school chemistry years ago)... isn't that something along the lines of you can't know where a particle is and how fast it's going since the "locating" process affects its energy? Well what if as technology gets better and better, we create a video camera that can see things that small and fast, and we can watch it frame by frame? Would that prove Heisenberg wrong? Or am I in way over my head and have no idea what I'm talking about? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Do you really believe that? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

As Nightingale said, the question is philosophical and can't be answered by simply "it's physics" or "it's chemistry". The question is why. Saying orderly things happen because other orderly things happen still doesn't explain why orderly things happen. Magnetic attraction doesn't prove or disprove intelligent design, but depending on your philosophical stance it can apparently be used for either case. I'm an engineer often accused of thinking too much like an engineer, and that statement even makes me laugh. I would modify it to "I see few physical things in the universe that can't be explained by physics". But there is a lot more to the world besides the physical side. Emotion, for example, which is why most of us skydive and are on this forum in the first place. But there probably is a physical counterpart to emotion (here I am arguing against my own point as usual), and maybe someday with a greater understanding of our own internal physics, we will be able to artificially reproduce emotions and everything we consider reality (or maybe we already can, I don't pretend to know everything that's out there in the techno world right now). Again the issue becomes philosophical. Are our lives, our emotions and our passions simply particles following the physical laws they're subjected to? Or are we something more, something unique and personal, intelligent and spiritual (I hate that fucking adjective and here I am using it). Do you love skydiving because of choices you have made and things you have decided to value, or is it simply the result of the way your physical and chemical body has responded to the physical and chemical world it's been thrust into? Or is it possible both are true? Two ways to say the same thing? More importantly, does it even matter? It's still hella fun either way (skydiving, that is...) www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Most Christians view evolution as illogical, when viewed as a "whole" explanation for existence, and I have to agree. I think evolution to some degree is probably possible, but I also see order in the universe and think that points to a creator/designer, though I'm not quick to identify him/her/it as specifically as Christianity does. I am getting to your question, believe it or not... my point is that most evolutionists and Christians believe is ONLY one or the other and thus are at war with each other. Creationists view evolution as very illogical, and vice versa. I think the fish eating the darwin-fish is supposed to symbolize that their belief is more logical, better, superior. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Not sure I understand... www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Do you have manual or computer controlled? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

I could have sworn it was just one... have any links showing the second? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Are you talking to yourself? www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Hmm... that centers around my B-day. I will maybe have 50 WS jumps by then if my back heals anytime soon. How many jumps you need to be a BMI? I'm not in any way implying that with 50 WS jumps I'd be ready to be a BMI (in fact I'm pretty sure I wouldn't feel ready for that responsibility anytime soon), but I am curious what your criteria are. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

ManBird has the best name.

Spread your wings for pictures! www.WingsuitPhotos.com