Calvin19

And yet . . . they are precisely the same. Inventing a mythology for something they simply do not understand. Indeed ...and (the same as) hoaxers, perps, denialists, etc.

I believe barium is the culprit here. Some of the chemtrailers may be insulted that they are in the same category as truthers.

I'm looking at portability. Hanglider you need cliff or tow. Paraglider you need cliff. Power paraglider you need an open area. Then there is kiteboarding, snow, ground, water. I realize there are many different aspects to any type of chute or kite sport. You can tow PGs just fine from a scooter, truck, or boat. Aero-tow (just as expensive as a skydive) is extremely rare on a PG, but common on HGs. Portability and versatility you cannot beat a PG or PPG. But Hang gliders (HGs) have SPEED, energy retention, and they don't have the nasty collapse issues that PGs have. -SPACE-

Hello, I have 10 years skydiving/BASE experience (D and~600/600 jumps respectively), 8 years paragliding experience (P4 and ~2000 flights) and only a handful of powered paragliding flights. I have deployed a paraglider (several steps) after exiting an airplane at 18,000' (and it is at best a complex process) that I don't see being very worthwhile except in as a novelty. The equipment for a ground launch paraglider flight vs a deployed paraglider flight has a heavy contrast. Doing a high pull on a larger more efficient skydiving canopy is really fun, and has a different appeal than a 8 hour soaring paraglider flight. No, "they" (I hate that word; 'they') don't make one that does that. Several people in the past, including myself, has dabbled in making what would be a 'fully free-fall deployable paraglider' but found after a few tries that the construction is very different and the type of fun you want to have is specific to the two different sports. Paragliding is very very fun, and I recommend it to anyone who wants to soar. I also hang glide, but I have not rigged my glider in years. Try everything! It's all fun and there are fun people to meet and awesome, beautiful places to go in all if it. (IMO the destinations for PG are much more beautiful than that of skydiving [flat, mostly farm land VS mountains/ocean cliffs) -SPACE-

In aviation is a controlled crash considered a landing? Fun with semantics. hmmm... To consider the difference between a crash and a landing one must take into account the intentions of the pilot. You can kill yourself on a controlled landing and you can walk away unscathed from a major crash. You can also accidentally land, and you can intentionally crash. An aircraft or pilot can be damaged/injured if it is a crash or a landing. The term "water landing" means an intentional terminating touchdown of an aircraft on water, be it a soft seaplane or an Airbus ditching in the river. The terms "any landing you walk away from" or "controlled crash" (in reference with aircraft carrier landings) are hyperboles. "he crashed on landing" is an acceptable term describing a combination of an intentional controlled landing that ended in some damage or injury. The pilot here is intentionally flying his wing-suit into a pile of boxes to end a flight. Even if he hurts himself and cannot do it again, by all applicable definitions it IS a landing. We will see if it is a crash or not once the boxes are cleared away.

twist the slider and double-wrap it with your slider stow. -SPACE-

Slider up would be fine. 200' is well below a realistic "decision altitude" But i'm mostly responding so this thread comes up in my "my posts" page.

It can't be you. You obviously have it all figured out. Tssk Tssk Calvin. Play the Ball, not the Man! ...Said the guy who doesn't play ball. Ahh Calvin, but I did play the ball. I'm just lucky that, when I walked to the Aeroplane for my last jump, I knew it. too true. Like I said, you have it all figured out. And i'm still waiting for the FAA to come in an confiscate my JVX.

It can't be you. You obviously have it all figured out. Tssk Tssk Calvin. Play the Ball, not the Man! ...Said the guy who doesn't play ball.

It can't be you. You obviously have it all figured out.

This one is real. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSxmiCyhCI

Meh, there are a fuckton of gullible people out there then. Doesn't take much of a brain to look at the video and tell it's fake. Or maybe I'm just special. But we ARE special, in that we know how something like that SHOULD look better than most people. Honestly, this is a forum of skydivers. We spend a large portion of our lives observing things that fly. A race car driver could more easily look at a CGI car video and point out the reasons it looks fake than your average hippie could. But it goes beyond just knowing what flying looks like. The constant blurry images, the cuts to different angles, the very obvious cgi on the side view "take off" angle. I agree there, and it was easy to spot right off the bat for us. But on the first two days as it was "going viral" on the 19th and 20th, there were a lot of news agencies reporting it as fact. -SPACE-

Meh, there are a fuckton of gullible people out there then. Doesn't take much of a brain to look at the video and tell it's fake. Or maybe I'm just special. But we ARE special, in that we know how something like that SHOULD look better than most people. Honestly, this is a forum of skydivers. We spend a large portion of our lives observing things that fly. A race car driver could more easily look at a CGI car video and point out the reasons it looks fake than your average hippie could.

Who lost? To win something or in something does not mean there is a loser, or even a contest. To win simply means to be successful in a venture. OR you could argue that it was Mr. Kaayk against the world, and getting a large majority of them to believe he had in fact made his project work was him "winning". But I don't think that is a good way to see things. Kaayk simply did what he set out to do, trick a bunch of people.

You are still missing the point of creating viral videos; For the soul purpose of stimulating a response from as many people as possible. He won, almost 10 million views and countless news agencies reporting on it. Even though it was pointed out as a fake by a lot of the more experienced or observant people out there, he still got a LOT of people to think that it was real. I had family members sending me the link to his videos asking me if I knew him or if i had ever done that. An experiment in social media he claims? well a damn revealing one. And like I said, a few times, his goal for this project was not to become a aeronautical hero. He made the video to trick people into thinking a fictional character had done something amazing. In doing so he became an internet celebrity. Even if his project went farther than he thought it would. You call him an exposed fraud, as if he was a famous climber that had been caught trying to fake summiting a never before climbed mountain. Instead the video maker (not the protagonist in the famous video, who is an actor) made up a fictional engineer(Smeets) and fictional project that had just enough validity to it so that it could be believed by a TON (though not all) of people. And it worked. Even if you are too smart too be duped, the video made its rounds thought the world internet and is still being reported on by news agencies that also report on massive world events. A lowly film maker received recognition worldwide for faking something that in the grand scheme of earth means nothing. Tricking millions of people is not a respectable thing to spend your life doing, but you have to give him credit for pulling it off.

"you are the one making the mistake, as I called it a likely hoax from the first viewing and said so in the discussion before" And yet here you are, online, still talking about him in front of everyone. Find me a better troll than this guy. (If confused, Here is what a troll is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) )

True, but I never saw any annoying banner adds like there are here. I saw a good bit of aeronautic and engineering authenticity in the designs he published. Though I knew from the beginning it was fake, I could not begin to imagine why (if not explicitly for viral marketing) someone would spend that much time on the hoax. But then i remembered half of the internet thinks the Apollo Project was filmed in the SW American desert. He admits that he frankensteined an old slingshot surf kite from the beginning. If you read his site you would see that his "project" supposedly has been in the works for a long time, and the ornithopter wing mechanics are pretty cool, even though the numbers do not add up.

There is no indication that the makers were stupid enough to assume they would be remembered as aeronautic heros by being the first to make a practical ultralight ornithopter. His/the makers goal was to make something amazing and emotive that people thought was "real". (If not that the goal was viral marketing though I do not see anything but vague references to wiimotes, slingshot kites, or HTC smartphones ) Don't be fooled by a notion of superiority in being able to spot a fake. It still was linked enough so that you watched it without looking for it, thought about it, and talked about it on the internet. Make no mistake, he won. -SPACE-

that is what gave it away for me when I first saw the video. the mechanism concept he designed was legit. The execution was not. But still, that is not what we should be focusing on here. Everyone, even us, is talking about it. Smeets won.

agreed. -SPACE-

The machine is real, and surprisingly almost legit. The video, sadly, is not. But the guy did do his homework. I would shake his hand with honor even though he faked it. What I'm very curious about is if he originally planned on actually flying it, or if he did thousands of man hours worth of R+D just to convince the 14 people worldwide that would not be won over were it not for his extensive website history and planning.

I'll gladly take it off your hands. I'll even pay shipping.

Yeah, right. If it's an asset that has value, it's going to be used, decommissioned or not. Might be in the "black" part (i.e., CIA, etc.) of the budget, though. your tin foil hat is leaking.