• Content

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

0 Neutral


  • Main Canopy Size
  • Reserve Canopy Size
  • AAD

Jump Profile

  • Home DZ
  • License
  • License Number
  • Licensing Organization
  • Number of Jumps
  • Years in Sport
  1. After looking through this thread real quick, I am surprised that you guys have not noticed an important detail from the accident investigation. The brake lamp filaments For decades, lamp filaments have been looked at during accident investigations to determine if a lamp was illumiated at the moment of collision. The reason is when the filament is hot when illumiated, it will stretch in the direction of travel at impact. I have read in a news article this week that the brake lamp bulbs showed that they were illumiated at impact.
  2. It really sucked to see the last few seconds. It looks like she made the mistake of trusting him too much. It looks something like the typical "wont happen to me" accident. It also just goes to show that you can't trust what you get from the news.
  3. Nick, That episode portrays a good analogy of what someone (or something) would go through if put in that situation. I agree that it would be unfair and cruel. I do not believe that the Killer Whales at Sea World are in the same position. What they have lost by being at Sea World, is being made up for in a large part by the relationship that they have with their trainers. This is a difficult concept for people to grasp who have never worked with animals in a capacity of something more than a casual owner would. The trainers who work these animals have a bond with them almost as strong as a parent-child bond. Further, you have no idea about how eager these whales are to please their trainers. Outside of the occasional days where they are upset about something and are not interested, when their assigned trainer is around, they are much like a dog who is happy to see his owner. Because of their inherent character trait of wanting to play, it is not hard to see why the work they do at Sea World is not work for them. They perform for people because they love to play. So if we simply kept them alone in a tank all day and let people stare at them, that would be cruel. But at Sea World, that does not happen. Sea World is not a typical old fashioned zoo. Do you know what kind of education is predominant amongst their trainers? The majority of them have degrees in Psychology. If all Sea World cared about was the shell of a whale and not their mind, then having an education in that field would not do much good. Jeff
  4. I'm at work right now. No Youtube here. I check it at home toninght.
  5. It was as late as 1957 that the US Navy was killing them by the 100's because they were considered a pest. In 1973 they still held them in contempt. Now, we have came a long way since the 50's and even the 70's. I don't think you would see this happen again. But things would not have changed as soon if it was not for places like Sea World. I do have a problem with how animals were displayed in the past. Once again, humans are trying to make it better for the animals. Further, I challenge you to find me a place that puts more effort into the health and well being of the Killer Whales at Sea World. You have to know, that surgery can't be undertaken on a killer whale. So almost all care is preventative. That is kind of like taking half of all medicine and not being able to use it. So, they have to work extra hard to make sure that they never have medical problems.
  6. I was not trying to imply that their behavior is the same. I was trying to say that if there were none in captivity, we would know a whole lot less about them. This is partly due to the direct result of studying them in captivity. But much more so becasue they are still alive in the wild and there are still some around to study. So how is it fair that a dog or cat gets locked up every day in the house and keeping killer whales is wrong? If an individual can purchase a 1000 acre piece of land here in the US, then real estate is not a problem. This place does not need to be in a population center like Orlando, San Diego or San Antonio. SeaWorld needs a place for for time off and retirement for them. The objection to this is that they have a hard time with change. Part of the issue that may have lead up to yesterday's incident was that there was construction going on there. Tilikum was probably stressed out becasue of it.
  7. So you're saying that it was OK for humans to put Orcas in captivity so that humans did not kill them all in the wild? In a way, Yes. It is highly likely that they would be extinct or close to it is humans did not have some in captivity. It is a fact that after the first one (Namu)was captured put on display and had human interaction people realised that they were not the savage beasts that they had been portrayed to be. It did not take long before there was enough public support to reverse the general attitude that they need to be killed off in the wild. Even today 40 some years later, those in captivity help those in the wild. Look at the public outcry over the US navy's use of high energy sonar. Do you think people would care at all about some "fish" getting hurt if they never knew what they were like?
  8. Don't you see the point that I was trying to make? They all would be dead if we did not have some in captivity to educate people with. Even marine biologists who go out to sea and study them every day admit that they know very little about them compared to land animals. Further, I ask you to justify humans having any animal in captivity such as your dog. Have you ever scolded you dog for doing something wrong? If you are like most, you probably have. The animals at Sea World are NEVER disciplined. If the trainers had the practice of doing so, it would be impossible to work with the animals at the level that they do, let alone at all. Further, there would certainly be more injuries and fatalities. Those who are against having them in captivity keep using the word "prison". You show me a prison where the "prisoners" are spoiled. The only area that I can compromise on, is I wish that SeaWorld had the facilities to provide more space for them. I don't think this is out of the question. With time, you will see this happen.
  9. For all of you that think they should not be in captivity: What you don't know is that because we have them in captivity, they are not extinct. Up until the early 60's, killer whales were shot at every opportunity. The US navy took the greatest role, by shooting hundreds of them near Iceland. Further, the first killers that were captured in the 60's and 70's had bullet scars. As late as 1973, the US Navy printed in a diving manual warning that killer whales "will attack human beings at every opportunity." It was not until 1966 when Namu was taken into captivity that people's attitudes started to change. When he was brought in for display in Seattle, people soon learned that there were highly intelligent and normally docile with humans. Since the 80's there have been several births at Sea World. There is now 2 generations of offspring at one park (Grandma, Mother, Daughter). How much of a chance of survival do you think they would have when they have never been in the wild? Those at Sea World do everything in their power to keep them healthy and happy. They are not just property there, they are truly family. This is difficult for the average person to understand. When you work with animals and develop a close relationship with them, you develop a strong bond with them. So, for people to say that they are abused while being trained is BS. The whales at Sea World are to the point where some could say that they are spoiled rotten. What I know about Tilikum is that he won't be put down. That would go directly against the culture at Sea World. I would even say that Dawn would not want to see that happen either.
  10. The rate at which humans belch CO2 into the atmosphere corresponds very closely to the measured rise in CO2 content of the atmosphere. Coincidence? I don't think so. Please have a look at the published graphs from the Vostok Ice core. It shows that the rate of rise of CO2 concentration has been almost straight up many times in the past. My question was are you 100% sure? Humans are a contributing factor, but can you be 100% sure that they are the only factor. How about 90% of the rise? What you may not be considering is how much CO2 is released from volcanic activity and what is released from the oceans. Further, how much does CO2 really add to the warming problem? Don't you think water vapor is a problem?
  11. Bill, I have a problem with how you phrased 1-3. 1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but saying that alone does not place any value to the magnitude of concentration for it to make a significant difference in temperatures. 2. Yes we may have been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but can you be 100% certain that humans are not the only cause of the increase? Are you 100% sure that the rise in temperature is not actually causing the increase of CO2? What is your opinion on the Vostok Ice Core? I constantly see AGW supporters use data that only goes back to 1850. 160 years is not even a blink of the eye when compared to 450k years worth of data from the Vostok ice core. 3. Again this is a relative statement. Of course CO2 increases the amount of heat retained, but how much does the concentration of CO2 contribute to the whole problem? What about the concentration of water vapor? Don't you think that is a more significant contributor? Why am I against the supporters of CO2 controls? It is because we are up against a very big problem if they manage to impose CO2 controls. This country could be driven deep into poverty if we can no longer emit CO2. If what the supporters say is true about climate change, then maybe their proposed ideas are a good thing. But, they are proposing what will result in huge changes in our lives based on incomplete research, stretched and doctored data, and possibly wrong conclusions. I am 100% behind energy efficiency improvment efforts, but to jump head first into capping CO2 emissions could be suicide. Look at what is happening right now at the climate summit. China is willing to make a deal limiting CO2 emissions on a per capita basis. Do you think that is fair? They have an advantage because of their population size and the proportion of poor. Poor people naturally do not make as much CO2 as those like us. So because of this, their industries can be less efficient, and emit more CO2 per unit of goods produced than us in the USA.
  12. Which one of these is false? a) CO2 is a greenhouse gas b) The concentration of atmospheric CO2 is increasing c) Thermodynamics works Jack, I have a problem with your post. First, all of the above are true, but to jump to the point to say that humans are the sole cause of the increase of the concentration of CO2 is stretching the facts. It also leaves out facts that can show that humans have nothing to do with it. When you jump into the GW argument, please look at the context. This thread's title includes the word "Anthropogenic". The same needs to be said to almost every major media outlet. They jump from point A to Z in every GW article published. Further, to just state that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is misleading because it does not state all of the facts. In particular it is misleading because it does not take in to account that the concentration level of CO2 to become a probem is still disputed. Your statement is no different than saying that "since we launch rockets into space, we are therefore altering the orbit of the planet from the reaction. Therefore, this will affect life on the panet" The first half is true, the second half is stretching the facts.
  13. Has anyone pretended to be passed out and then just before someone trys to start someting they jump up and yell "FAKE!"