quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

I'm open to reading any sources you can point to that disprove the experiences of the seven people in the link I provided. Granted it's a wiki link, but if you've got books, magazine articles, etc., to recommend that prove these people didn't experience the events they say they did, I would be interested to read them.

Disprove a negative?

None of those stories have ever proven true.

https://youtu.be/do3w2RQgTS4

Here's a claim of a parachutist who "fell 8000' to earth without a parachute."

We quickly find that the claim is sensationalistic and a lie. The "no parachute" was actually a reserve shot into a main that had been fouled by a large flag. He had two canopies out, and his descent rate far from the 120 mph stable face to earth freefall terminal velocity; his descent rate is reported at 30 mph.

Given that a landing under a round canopy, typical military freefall, for example, will be 22-25 feet per second at impact, or 17 mph vertically, the person who fell "8000' with no parachute" actually landed with two at just under twice the normal landing rate. Still serious, but absolutely nothing like advertised.

Lots of wild stories out there. They're just not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
I'm trying to recall my high school and college physics.....

125 meters per second? I can't imagine a free fall is survivable.

I doubt she was anywhere close to terminal velocity. She had two chutes offering drag, and she hit limbs in the tree. These would significantly reduce her speed at impact. (I think)

120 mph terminal velocity equates to 53 meters/second.

We're actually debating whether somebody could survive a terminal velocity impact? The colloquial term for it is to "bounce." It's not survivable. Neither deep snow nor jungle canopy will matter. And if both parachutes fail, it's just not your day.

USPA D-15682

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
Despite all the stories and rumors about freefall to impact being survived by WWII soldiers in snow and other fanciful myths, none have been proven true. It's not survivable.

Is there proof that these people that survived such incidents are not telling the truth?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade

Strange things do happen in this world. Some of them nothing short of miraculous.

Without any drag, he’d be falling around 120+ miles/hour. Hitting trees or snow covered ground st that speed And surviving = miracle indeed!

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
"Bytes, meet the skydiver."

"Skydiver, meet Bytes."

"You guys have a lot in common."

That made me LOL. Difference between Skydiver and Bytes was Bytes had a chance. She had .000000001 chance.

quote:

Originally posted by 1gkek:
We're actually debating whether somebody could survive a terminal velocity impact?

Nope. Not even debatable.

Glad she survived!

A buddy of mine (Ex Seal)who now runs his own Skydiving Team once told me "Don't panic if you have a problem during a jump, you got the rest of your life to figure it out."

For clarity,I have never made a jump but hope to do a tandem next tine I go to San Diego to visit.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

I'm open to reading any sources you can point to that disprove the experiences of the seven people in the link I provided. Granted it's a wiki link, but if you've got books, magazine articles, etc., to recommend that prove these people didn't experience the events they say they did, I would be interested to read them.

Disprove a negative?

None of those stories have ever proven true.

https://youtu.be/do3w2RQgTS4

Here's a claim of a parachutist who "fell 8000' to earth without a parachute."

We quickly find that the claim is sensationalistic and a lie. The "no parachute" was actually a reserve shot into a main that had been fouled by a large flag. He had two canopies out, and his descent rate far from the 120 mph stable face to earth freefall terminal velocity; his descent rate is reported at 30 mph.

Given that a landing under a round canopy, typical military freefall, for example, will be 22-25 feet per second at impact, or 17 mph vertically, the person who fell "8000' with no parachute" actually landed with two at just under twice the normal landing rate. Still serious, but absolutely nothing like advertised.

Lots of wild stories out there. They're just not true.

I'm not debating whether your example is true or not. You said that none of the people in the link I provided experienced what they said they did, even though one of them (Vesna Vulovic) holds the world record for highest fall without a parachute (33,000 ft.)

What proof do you have that she, nor any of the other six people who fell thousands of feet without a parachute, did not do so? If their experiences are false there must be some evidence, beyond your stating they didn't, that these events did not occur, correct?

There's no proof that those events happened. Just unsubstantiated claims.

You've heard from a few experts right here on the forum with considerable experience in this area; freefall, parachuting, etc. I'm sure that most, if not all of us know people who have bounced. Some of us have had the experience ourselves. Those who have bee doing it for some time know all the tired tropes, the cliches, the wives tales and urban legends and all the stories, because we've heard them so many times. The too-tired wuffo question, "wuffo you go 'an jump 'outta a perfectly good airplane, wuffo." And of course the endless claims about those who freefell not to their death, but to their survival.

Except it just ain't true. You understand the concept of not proving a negative?

In the past few years, a parachutist rode a wingsuit into a large stand of cardboard boxes and survived, and a descent onto a steep slope from a wingsuit descent was made, recovering on skis. And of course, the Luke Aikins recovery shown below.. Other than that, no one has survived a fall to impact without a parachute. No need to prove that they didn't survive, because it didn't happen. One does not prove a negative.

Prove that it did.

quote:

Originally posted by Hardway:


A buddy of mine (Ex Seal)who now runs his own Skydiving Team once told me "Don't panic if you have a problem during a jump, you got the rest of your life to figure it out."

All sixty seconds of it.

At 12,500' above ground, out the door, there are sixty seconds of freefall, depending on opening altitude. That's 8-10 seconds to reach terminal velocity, then 5-6 seconds per thousand feet thereafter, depending on the type of freefall, gear, etc. It can be considerably less. Upon reaching 2,500-3,000' (typical opening altitudes), one has fifteen seconds or less until impact, which means that at the time of opening, if a malfunction occurs, you do have the remaining fifteen seconds of your life to clear the malfunction, or deploy the reserve, and land.

Beyond that, time is up.

If at first you don't succeed, so much for skydiving. If, however, your gear fails, no worries. Your second jump is free.

Blue skies, black death.

And then there's this guy...

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:
There's no proof that those events happened. Just unsubstantiated claims.

You've heard from a few experts right here on the forum with considerable experience in this area; freefall, parachuting, etc. I'm sure that most, if not all of us know people who have bounced. Some of us have had the experience ourselves. Those who have bee doing it for some time know all the tired tropes, the cliches, the wives tales and urban legends and all the stories, because we've heard them so many times. The too-tired wuffo question, "wuffo you go 'an jump 'outta a perfectly good airplane, wuffo." And of course the endless claims about those who freefell not to their death, but to their survival.

Except it just ain't true. You understand the concept of not proving a negative?

In the past few years, a parachutist rode a wingsuit into a large stand of cardboard boxes and survived, and a descent onto a steep slope from a wingsuit descent was made, recovering on skis. And of course, the Luke Aikins recovery shown below.. Other than that, no one has survived a fall to impact without a parachute. No need to prove that they didn't survive, because it didn't happen. One does not prove a negative.

Prove that it did.

What is unsubstantiated about Vesna's falling and survival? Or Juliane Koepcke's? Do you have anything more than your opinion that these events didn't occur? I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You are in effect saying these people are lying about their experiences when there are facts substantiating the events they lived through. If they are lying, what evidence is there, beyond your opinion and other people saying it couldn't happen, to substantiate that accusation?

Proof, evidence, or whatever term you are comfortable with, it's your opinion that something didn't happen vs. events where there are enough facts to support the plausibility of the events actually having occurred. In an entirely different scenario, event, action, etc., which option sounds more believable - a person's experience and facts verifying the plausibility of the claim, or somebody saying the experience didn't happen without anything more than their opinion that such things are impossible?

Edit to add a couple of questions:

sn3 - you stated that experts here on the forum - as regards parachuting/freefall - have said the events of the seven people I'm referring to could not have happened. My questions are:

- who are the experts you're referring to?
- what reasons are there, or what qualifications do they have that they can claim the status of expert?
- have they, or anyone else, investigated the claims of the seven people in the link I provided? If so, what part(s) of any of the claims is/are irrefutably false?

I'm not trying to be contentious, but I don't know why you would expect anyone to take your opinion that something absolutely could not take place without any actual evidence to refute the events.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: marksman41,

quote:

Originally posted by 1gkek:
We're actually debating whether somebody could survive a terminal velocity impact? The colloquial term for it is to "bounce."

I thought it was "kersplat."

Our lord has a purpose for her..

Reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB4Vc2YjGKo

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The odds of both chutes failing seem to be extremely low. I'm assuming she deployed her reserve chute before properly cutting away her main chute?

Anyway, that would be pretty terrifying.

This.
Yes.
Very much adds up.

quote:

Originally posted by 1gkek:
We're actually debating whether somebody could survive a terminal velocity impact? The colloquial term for it is to "bounce." It's not survivable. Neither deep snow nor jungle canopy will matter. And if both parachutes fail, it's just not your day.

USPA D-15682

Yep. D-13603

Since people have survived vehicle and plane crashes at much higher speeds than 120 mph, I'd say it is possible to survive falling at terminal velocity depending on what you fell through and what surface you fell onto.

There's a big difference between being in an aircraft or vehicle at those speeds, or being in the worlds fastest non-mechanical sport in which your only crushable protection is the thin helmet you're wearing...and your bones. Big, big, big difference.

Lots of mythology on the net, but if it's on the internet, it must be true.

USPA has published articles on the subject before, debunking the myths of surviving without a parachute. Even Vesna Vulovic, who holds the guiness record as surviving from the highest height without a parachute, didn't freefall to impact; she crashed in the wreckage and was found in the wreckage of a DC9 after a bomb explosion caused an inflight breakup. Big, big difference between that and freefalling to impact.

But the stories get circulated, especially with the web, and they get repeated, and they seem to get more and more believable. Mostly by the gullible.