kimemerson

Here's the notice.

I recommend reading his book, "Skydivers, Flying with Their Pants on Fire". It has a very good and thorough first-hand account of the very early days of skydiving from just around the time the word"skydive" was first introduced by Jacques Istel. Tom relates talks about Good Hill farm, Orange Mass., Lew Sanborn, Charlie Hilliard and more. Tom is a history book on legs and it is fascinating stuff. It is just too common for people to be ignorant of history in general, and for us, the history of skydiving specifically. Modern skydiving's very first pioneers are still alive. Istel, Sanborn, Pond and others. Tom is not long for this world, so sad to say. And it has been my unique privilege to know Tom for ten or more years, and to hear his stories and to ask him for more. I for one will miss him very much.

No, you didn't come across as at all. I saw it as like when the teacher in a class calls on the kid in the back who had his hand up but was just yawning or stretching. "Yes, Kim, what's the answer?" "Wha...? Who, me...? No, I was just... What was the question?" So no apologies needed.

I do. And I know the guy. And if I know Tim, he was laughing too.. Not right away, but soon enough. Without a sense of humor - not malice - we couldn't do what we do. We start by laughing at ourselves.

well, I'm a slow learner and I never did learn how to make a clicky thing. So I tried. I failed. I deleted. I was mostly experimenting and even if I had been successful I would have deleted because I already posted the link in an earlier post. So, I was trying to each myself something. The first post in which I did not make a clicky was for a fake ad for the "swooptrainer. It reminded me of one of the photos you posted (#0191) Aside from that, don't we know each other? From DeLand, maybe 1990-93 or so?

[url] http://marcusantebi.com/swooptrainer.jpg [url]

http://marcusantebi.com/swooptrainer.jpg

'88 at the earliest. '91 at the latest. Possibly Z-hills. Possibly Lucaya Air. That is indeed Lukas Knutsson on the left bench, and Craig Buxton with a beard on the right in blue.

you really believe what you just said?

When in fact we're not discussing the ad, but the skydive. And so far no one has been able to refute with satisfaction that it isn't real footage simply used for the ad's second part, which is staged, obviously. What about the skydive & malfunction portion seems fake to everyone? We were disecting the skydive and had already distanced ourselves from the ad. I've seen hundreds of hours of video in 19 years of skydiving. I've shot hundreds of hours as a videographer. And as far as I can see there isn't anything initially fake about this. Prove me wrong. Aside from that, a simple comment would have been appropriate.

Are you criticizing the discussion or seeking clarity? If the former please feel free to abstain. If the latter please be more considerate when asking.

Well I'm wondering if as his friend pulled, the vidiographer follows the deployment by going from belly to sitting, which might explain the spin like footage before he pulls his own. Then we see him in a spin which could be the main malfunction. As for "the no cutaway", I would accept that we just don't see it. He does sort of get stable between the alleged main malfunction and the frames where we see the reserve ripcord. As for not looking up, I don't know that it is so obvious that "something is open above him". It may be out but it sure as hell isn't open. And he may have recognized right away that he had a high speed mal. And you're right that his head may have been pinned enough to prevent his looking.

yeah, it sort of looks like he's had the p.c. tucked into a wad his hand before releasing it. And are there multiple lines rather than a bridle? What are they? I admit I cannot figure out the pilot chute thing. And does he have a double mal? Now, assuming the pilot chute thing is just something we here don't understand yet, and assuming it's easily explained by someone, what about the rest of the video suggests it's a fake. Couldn't the whole of this video be legit? (Not part two)

Is it on the p.c.? Or just very near it? I'm only suggesting a pull out. Also, with a pullout, if, for instance, the pud had released prematurely he could have placed his hand farther along the bridle, closer to the pin, pulling the pin more directly, which would place his hand closer to the p.c. itself without ever actually touching the pud.

Certainly worth the chuckle. But, aside from the commercial aspect, isn't that real freefall and canopy/malfunction footage? The first video stops just before the cow strike. It only gets theatrical after that. And for Samsung to use an authentic tragic situation ifor commercial gain is not at all original. I can't recall the details but years ago Cypres got into hot water for running a print ad based on the very real tragedy of skydivers going in at the South (I think) pole. They had to pull the ad.

It's hard to tell exactly but it could have been a pull out p.c. Note that after he tosses his p.c we see the metal reserve ripcord (but no yellow cutaway cable) and he spins like he's in a malfunction after he goes to his reserve. Though it's likely he had a double mal. Right up to the cow and the sudden end of the video, I can't see anything to suggest a fake here.

•Ram airs+Otters+laziness=spotting as lost art. •Wide-eyed newbie+Mr. Mentor (aka Mr. Ignorant/stupid/irresponsible as hell)= gonna die. Or hurt enough to wish to die. One of the wisest, most sage bits on this thread is the bounce bingo suggestion.Line up & get yer tickets. Our equipment & advanced training has wreaked havoc with Darwin in skydiving. We can only be thankful for the human factor to fill the gap and thin the herd of the weak. I say let the bugger jump Luigi Cani's discards and make room for the rest of us. The sport is getting a tad crowded anyway.

In spirit I agree with your comment. As stated it's a bit broad. I was just sort of surprised that so far there were those who also agreed but no one offered any examples. If anyone who has posted were a news reporter their editor would have to have a wee chat before going to press. You can't make allegations without citation and affirmation. So, I too await some examples from those who agree. Which may require some memory because I suspect the unnecessary innovations have not survived and may well have disappeared shortly after they were brought out. Some also fell by the wayside as learning changed. •Webbed gloves come to mind. •Wings for sit-flying didn't survive in the long haul. Though they did get Tony Uragallo Skydiving Magazine's 2nd or 3rd Annual Skydiver of the Year award. •Bungee pilot chutes. •What's that canopy with the fins - or whatever they are - on top? •Or canopy top skin/bottom skin differences in materials (F-111 & zero-P) These may or may not be of the unessential innovation sort. They were seen as useful and people used them all. But they're largely all gone now. Anyone have more? Interesting question, Gary.

I'd sure like some examples. Not a single post in this thread has cited one. Nary a one. They're out there. Just name them.There may well be some of these unnecessary new things but the necessary ones were new innovations once too, made by someone likely trying to "make their mark" or, slim as it may be, to actually benefit the community. So please separate the two for me and let me know which you're talking about. Along the lines of unnecessary innovations we have as an example the different container manufacturers who essentially all have the exact same product with little variation. Bill Booth came up with a number of the big innovations which represented permanent change in design that they all use now, but otherwise a majority of container differences are merely sales points and nothing else. You can't be a viable competitor if your product is a carbon copy of the others. But they are to some extent. I recognize my statement as a generalization. No need to point that out.

looks a lot like GWB. (That's George Washington Bridge, and not the current White House occupant).

I agree this is a tad more than sightly but I'd also suggest the camera's angle is not agreeing with the facts and is allowing us to perceive something else. Were a whuffo to look at this they'd be convinced the pilot is directly above the canopy in a relatively true vertical-to-earth position. 'tain't so.

Ever so slightly above. A Stiletto will do that. But I think the original scenario was a full loop, with the canopy & pilot in a vertical orientation to the ground, but 108° rotated from the customary configuration; canopy high, pilot low. Unless I am mistaken. Being slightly above a canopy is not new. It was done with the Excalibur and possibly even the old F-111 PD's. (My time in the sport goes back farther than my memory for details. If it was done with F-111 PD's it wasn't done much.) So let us re-examine: Barrel roll with pilot slightly above canopy: Yes. Front (or back) loop with pilot completely above canopy and continuing through loop: No. I would say that it might even be impossible for the pilot to be completely above the canopy mid-loop without falling through the canopy.

Not that I actually know what I'm talking about, but I'd be willing to place a good deal of money on a bet that it has not been done with a skydiving parachute. SKYDIVING parachute. Not paragliding. Many times our perspective can lie to us. I believe the original post's description is of a loop whereby the pilot & canopy reverse traditional positions on the way around. Front or back lop? Don't know. Either way, I'd love to see proof and then have the pilot who did it to confirm it. I'd need to see video from a few perspectives because I know one is not enough for truth. So, stubborn ass that I be, I stand by my initial assertion that it cannot be done, has not been done, and is likely a long way from being done. Please, please prove me wrong.

email John LeBlanc at PD for some stories on this very thing. I don't know that he actually pulled it off but he has certainly put more than a few canopies through their paces and I believe he's done close to this one. Our skydiving parachutes are of a different design than those of paragliders and I know they can pull off stunts which would flat out kill anyone trying the same under one of our canopies.

Just a wild shot in the dark: Is Duane Weber any relation to Billy & Larry ("Lucky") Weber? Or put another way, isn't Billy & Larry's father also a skydiver - or was, or something?