Dude jumps without a parachute...? And lands in a net?

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I guess. I just read the story and I have already forgot his name.

As long as he used private funds and did not hurt destroy anything, I don't have a problem with this, but at the same time, don't really have any interest either.

There are so many other ways to "make history" by helping people and trying to make the world a little bit better. What could he have accomplished if he had taken this money and effort and put it to something else?

Assuming that it was his money to give but either way that's a question we can all ask ourselves. Is playing subsims and doing all the other recreational activities we love to spend money on really necessary compared to making the world a little bit better? How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?

Originally Posted by August

How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?

Who says we aren't?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by August

Assuming that it was his money to give but either way that's a question we can all ask ourselves. Is playing subsims and doing all the other recreational activities we love to spend money on really necessary compared to making the world a little bit better? How can we criticize him without criticizing ourselves?

I spent €400 on my garden this year. Another €250 on hiking gear.

€650 is more than some fammilies have as their monthly budget.
Do I feel bad for spending my money on my hobbies ?? No, I don't.
I helped people on many occasions and will continue to do so and one can have himself as a priority without being selfish.

Plus, what's better, give money away or put that money into circulation ??

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Who says we aren't?

Who says we are?

[August]

Originally Posted by Betonov

I spent €400 on my garden this year. Another €250 on hiking gear.

€650 is more than some fammilies have as their monthly budget.
Do I feel bad for spending my money on my hobbies ?? No, I don't.
I helped people on many occasions and will continue to do so and one can have himself as a priority without being selfish.

Plus, what's better, give money away or put that money into circulation ??

Exactly my point.

Originally Posted by August

Who says we are?

Right...

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Zero opposition

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

So, everyone who opposes this stunt is automatically some grumpy dick?

Which one is it?

My own opinion is that he did something no one has ever done before, and likely will never top. He did something amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My own opinion is that he did something no one has ever done before, and likely will never top. He did something amazing, and he deserves his accolades.

There was one that did it without a net
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

[Onkel Neal]

Maybe next time it will be a bucket of water. I can't wait!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Betonov

There was one that did it without a net
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87

He's the highest, but not the only one. None of them did it on purpose, though.

[August]

Think of the military applications.

Free falling paratroops would be a lot more difficult to spot and engage than ones under canopy and aircraft could release their jumpers from much higher altitudes, out of range of ground fire. Maybe even from 50-75 miles away if glide suits are used.

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by August

Think of the military applications.

Free falling paratroops would be a lot more difficult to spot and engage than ones under canopy and aircraft could release their jumpers from much higher altitudes, out of range of ground fire. Maybe even from 50-75 miles away if glide suits are used.

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?

Enemy tent ??

If one can slow down enough to survive landing in a net, paratroopers can deploy parachutes at extremly low altitudes.

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I don't think that would be useful as it requires troops on the ground installing these nets which would be easily spotted and they can only catch one person at a time. That somewhat defeats the point of paratroops, doesn't it?

I agree, it is nonsensical.
There are, for SOF at least, HALO and HAHO (night) jumps who suffice in irregular warfare scenarios (no enemy air superiority/AA threats etc.)

Throwing soldiers into a net...uhm...yeah, no.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

Throwing soldiers into a net...uhm...yeah, no.

Haha, I almost spit my coffee