NoCoSkyDiver

Members
  • Content

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never
  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Gear

  • Main Canopy Size
    190
  • Reserve Canopy Size
    176
  • AAD
    Vigil 2

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
    Mile-Hi
  • License
    B
  • Licensing Organization
    USPA
  • Number of Jumps
    130
  • Tunnel Hours
    8
  • Years in Sport
    1
  1. A couple of years ago, somebody posted a letter about what to expect during your first skydive. If I remember correctly it was associated with his family member skydiving (possibly a daughter). I do remember that it was very well written. I tried to search for it, but I could not find it. Does anybody have this, or have the link to this?
  2. My son did glider training at Boulder. The typical approach of the gliders is a midfield crosswind, downwind, base, and then final. Currently my son flies in owl canyon (ft collins). Although, he received very good training, I always thought that the airspace was very tight. I have not jumped there; but I would feel more comfortable with an off field landing given the chance. The physical space seems much smaller than mile hi.
  3. Agreed, inference or observation leads to the hypothesis and the scientific method. I was only responding that scientific proof is from the scientific model not looking at facts.
  4. Real science starts with a collection of facts and then draws conclusions based on evidence. I probably really should not respond here because I am not the right person to get in a debate with you on creationism. The only point that I have to make is that the scientific method does not start with the collection of facts. The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. An experiment is developed and performed. Data(facts) are collected. Then the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. If your hypothesis is sound and your experiment is reproducible, then the scientific community may universally accept the hypothesis. Looking at facts and making conclusions is not science; it is inference. I have spent the better part of the last decade trying to look at this debate. If you honestly try to be open to both sides, your head might want to explode. I really do not want to open a big debate because my faith has been messed up enough getting into it. I hesitate to give it, but in my opinion, the science behind Darwin's theory and the Big Bang theory is weak. That is why they are called theories and not laws ( such as newtons laws. They really do not scientifically prove creation or evolution. That is why most are somewhat intolerant of criticism. The problem with the creation scientists is that they do not come up with a specific hypothesis that can not be tested. They have have very elegant arguments against evolution and the Big Bang theories that are quasi scientifically based. They don't prove anything either. Either way you have to have faith. Faith that the universe came out of a creator or out of nothing.
  5. Dropped in while visiting the Atlanta area to get a fun jump done. Immediately greeted by the DZO and many of the local jumpers. Made to feel welcome. Was able to get 3 jumps done with minimal downtime. The King Air gets to altitude fast. I would go back given the opportunity!
  6. First thanks to everybody for their comments. I think that I do have more sensitive eyes than usual given the fact that I have never really been able to get comfortable with contacts. My left eye is still red and teary, but not painful. My right eye is much better. I know it seems pretty stupid that I did not reach up and flip my visor down. This was my first jump ever with a full face helmet, and the feeling of wind against my face was something that was norm to me. I was concentrating on getting to my slot on a speedstar and really did not realize the wind against my eyes until after canopy opening. At that time, I noticed my eyes were teary. I was wearing my normal glasses (nothing tight fitting). Maybe they provided a little bit of wind protection that I did not notice until later. I am more aware of body position, surroundings, etc than let's say 20 jumps ago. Maybe this is a reminder that I still have a ways to go.
  7. So I did something stupid yesterday. On my first jump with a full faced helmet, I forgot to flip my visor down. Made additional 4 jumps. My eyes were ok. Last night my eyes started getting red. This morning my eyes are red, tearing, and sore. I am assuming I have windburned eyes. Anybody else experience this? Do eye drops help? Anybody know about how long it takes to get better?
  8. For what it is worth from a complete noob. I have a new pulse 190 with about 30 jumps on it. I find the flare to be good and have been happy with my selection so far.
  9. Russia has no vested interest in misrepresenting US realities. Do they? Paul, What was stated in the article that the Russians misrepresented?
  10. May or may not hurt, I do not know. I really do not have a dog in this fight. Not a NRA member,etc. I just wanted to point abut a statement of fact was not a fact.
  11. I have a problem with states w/o helmet or seatbelt laws: it causes everyone else's auto insurance premiums to go up. I was a resident working at the trauma center in TN. I remember reading a study that showed the health care costs to the state of TN went down after passing a law stating that a helmet was optional. I assume it was from people dying before making it to the hospital to incur the big bills. I don't remember anything about seatbelts. Are there any states where seatbelts r optional?
  12. As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided. "We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains. Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement. In the 1960s scientists researching road accidents thought mandating improvements to brakes, installation of seatbelts, etc. *might* help reduce accidents. People like YOU decried the idea. However, turns out the scientists were correct. Traffic fatalities per mile down by 80% since 1960. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. I think that you are comparing apples to oranges. I was born in the late 60s, but I can not imagine arguing that better brakes would not help prevent accidents. What you have done is take one study ( having marginal statistical significance ) which happens to fit your bias and made it fact. An objective scientist will just go with the results of the aggregate of the studies take him. The person who wrote the study did not even make the claim stronger background checks work.
  13. As a scientist, you should know that one study that shows a barely statistically significant result does not prove a fact. To quote from the source you provided. "We think our findings indicate comprehensive background checks may help, but it would be a mistake to think of them as a panacea," Sen explains. Better if you said background checks may work. It appears your own bias is clouding your scientific judgement.
  14. Sesquipedalianism There have been a couple of times when I used this word. Usually something like this: "Why do you always practice sesquipedalianism?" It is pretty fun to see the offenders reaction after they look it up.