The111

I would change that as follows: 1. Change 'Luke' to 'Luke jumped without a parachute' 2. Change 'made a parachute jumo' to '3 guys jumped using parachutes' 3. Change the center overlap from '3 other dudes' to '4 people made a skydive' Jerry Baumchen That's not how Venn diagrams work at all. In a Venn diagram, a circle represents set membership. If two circles intersect, it implies that something is a member of both sets. You are suggesting that I make the left circle "people who jumped without parachutes" and the right circle "people who jumped with parachutes." If I do that, then (a) the circles won't overlap at all, since it is logically impossible to be a member of both of those sets simultaneously (i.e. to both jump with and without a parachute) and (b) it would not illustrate the point I was trying to make, which was that everybody made a skydive, despite not everybody making a parachute jump. My diagram does make your final point: all 4 people made a skydive (this is why all 4 people are inside the left circle). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Yes, there was a parachute jump happening. He was not part of that jump, since he did not have a parachute. His proximity to it is of no regard. If I walk through a basketball court while a game is happening, it does not mean I was playing basketball. If the basketball players were drinking beer, and I was also drinking beer while walking through, I was a part of the beer drinking event. There was also a skydive happening. He was a part of the skydive. It's not really that complicated, I am not sure how there is any confusion: 4 jumpers made a skydive together 3 of them made a parachute jump 1 of them did some shit so badass it's not even accounted for by the FAA books yet If it's still not clear, there is a Venn diagram attached.

It'd be about the same as flying through a 90-way round formation on their belly when you're in a head-down dive, in theory. Responding to this post very late in the game... Your assessment leaves out one critical component: wind. Another poster mentioned aiming at a cloud in freefall, and that poster also makes the same mistake. (Incidentally, confusing airspeed with groundspeed is probably one of the most common mixups I see even experienced jumpers make... this confusion is to blame for the misguided "45 degree" exit rule and also for many misconceptions about swooping in high winds). Both a cloud, and a group of other jumpers, are in the same air mass as you. But the ground is not. I would imagine one of Luke's biggest concerns was wind. A lot of posts have commented on how wind could be a concern in terms of spot, i.e. getting to the target from exit altitude. But none that I've seen have mentioned the considerations of wind while on final approach to the target. Ask yourself: can you side slide at X mph? Backslide? Track? Obviously, you are most powerful, and therefore most likely to be able to negate any wind effects, while in a forward slide, i.e. track. Which explains why many people commented about noticing Luke doing some small tracking maneuvers in the last moments of his freefall. My guess: he wasn't tracking because he was off center. He was tracking to maintain center. Probably, a big part of the planning was knowing what direction the wind would be, and making sure that his intended approach had him headfirst into that wind, so while on final approach the only corrections he would need to make would be small track inputs to cancel out whatever wind was trying to push him backwards. The larger point I'm making though, is thinking about it in those terms makes the entire stunt seem less trivial. Sure, any experienced jumper could probably freefall through a 100x100ft window in the airmass that they're already in. But, when you think about the fact that if you're aiming at a target on the ground, any wind (even a small one) is your mortal enemy, constantly trying to push you off target... it sounds a LOT scarier. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

::cough:: and having a hot meteorologist wife ::cough:: You should get that cough checked out. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Where can we find more info about this? Is it available commercially?

To add to what Dan says above, IMO video editing is an art, and specifications do not apply to art. Specifications are for engineering (I say this as both an engineer and an artist). That won't help you much in your search, but it is food for thought.

You know the name of the event right? Heaven Sent.. The111 informed me, that is where heaven starts. Hell Bound was deemed by the network to be a much less desirable (albeit much more metal) name. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Post 129 contains an attachment with all the details of the mod. I don't think there is any bragging or secrets here. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

August. By a strange coincidence, the same month in which he made this post. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Attached is a photo of our hero hard at work. He was standing roughly 100 yards away from the canopy at this point. I also had stood near that same point a week earlier, without any high tech spy gear to help me out (I'm talking about the hat obviously... and the drone). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is that what I think it is? I didn't know if or when that story was going to run for sure. Mags come late on west coast, I haven't seen mine yet. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

By definition the stunt is a really close call.

Less than fully informed: using an increment of change as a discussion point, when rate of change is what matters. If temps go up at the rate of 2F/century (a randomly chosen value for the sake of illustrating something that should be obvious), then you get to enjoy the rest of your life. In a couple millennia (a relatively short time on a planetary scale), no humans will be enjoying any life. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

If you want to make that point, so be it. I disagree, but more importantly: it does not justify the divisive statement I was responding to. It is a childish tactic to respond to being called out for a thing, by pointing a finger at somebody else doing the same thing. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It's an unrelated fact, but it could also be nice setup for a segue into blaming the victim, if one is so inclined. On the large scale things are improving. Of course trend lines are never perfectly smooth. But compared to 50 years ago, we're doing much better today. The issues we're dealing with at the moment are nothing more than further growing pains. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

If that's true, it reinforces my original point: That statement is complete bullshit and could not possibly accomplish anything other than further division. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That statement is complete bullshit and could not possibly accomplish anything other than further division. Fortunately, some people actually get it (see attached). I'm glad you could see through my sarcasm. It's not really possible to miss the sarcasm when a white man says "black lives are all that matter." The following exercise might help you understand my point: 1) Go to a black lives matter rally 2) Hold a sign that says "black lives are all the really matter in the end" 3) Make sure they know you're being sarcastic Observe how they respond. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

That statement is complete bullshit and could not possibly accomplish anything other than further division. Fortunately, some people actually get it (see attached). www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Is that a private spam list or can anyone join? It is almost certainly an entirely bogus story made to make some people feel good. If you write an article about a thing that is supposedly happening on the public internet, and don't link to the pages you're talking about, you're either (a) an idiot or (b) making it up. The amount of effort it would take to link to the supposed tweets being discussed in the article is far less than the effort it took to write said article. And the amount of effort it takes to believe anything you read is far less than the effort it takes to stop and think. Also, it's the fucking Mirror. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Hey, I dust that corner regularly! www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Serious question for anybody who's ever said "praise God" when things go as desired: do you say "praise God" when things don't go as desired? If yes, then you appear to be rejoicing at a tragedy. If no, you appear to imply that God is only worthy of praise if his choices please you. I can't see either position as defensible. A god who is only worthy of praise sometimes is not the same god most believers describe. Yet I've never seen any of these believers praise their god as tragedy is unfolding, only beg him to change his mind. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Great video as always.

Humor me for a moment and pretend I actually believe you have an interest in understanding why people receive you the way they do. Here is your biggest issue: You refuse to back up your own insane positions (e.g. Obama acts like a secret Muslim), but expect others to back up things they never actually said. That's not even a double standard. It's like a quadruple standard. I won't pretend that all Muslims, or all liberals, or all conservatives are the same. But for the sake of argument, I will generalize. Most liberals want to protect freedom of religion. For both Christians and Muslims. Most liberals do not want legislation based on a religion (be it the Christian kind or the Muslim kind). Most liberals do not want legislation based on a prejudice (regardless of the religion of the person holding the prejudice). Please find me any liberal in this entire forum who has ever defended anybody who wants to "hang the gays" (or even a conservative or a Muslim who has said that, for that matter). Your comic depicts unreality on multiple levels. It assumes that a "perfect liberal" would defend something that any compassionate human would not. It assumes that your typical Muslim believes in something that most of them do not. It tries to relate these falsehoods into some sort of logical progression. It's the equivalent of saying 4 + airplane = banana. It doesn't add up, and the pieces aren't even remotely accurate. In reality, if the Muslim in that comic said he didn't believe those things, and you walked into frame, you would probably tell him that he does (please correct me if I'm wrong). It's not possible to argue with somebody who places you behind beliefs you don't actually have. And back on the topic of things you have actually said that you refuse to quantify. If this comic accurately depicts how Muslims act, and Obama acts like a Muslim, please find me some examples of him acting like this (to go along with the examples previously requested of liberals in this forum defending violence against gays). My prediction: you won't find either. But you will keep posting myths of both. I'd love to be wrong though. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

It is hilarious that you can string together two contradicting sentences like that and not see the issue with it. If you don't want to explain your post, then don't. But don't claim you're "standing by it" at the same time. The two are mutually exclusive. www.WingsuitPhotos.com

Off topic, but nice! signature! www.WingsuitPhotos.com