JohnBurke

So he claims, and yet he wore a sport parachute rig (not a pilot parachute rig, which one wouldn't normally wear in this airplane, in any case. A pilot parachute rig has considerably less bulk, and involves one parachute, not two. As noted in the video, he exited the airplane with ample altitude to get stable and deploy his main, with more than enough altitude to cut away a malfunction and deploy a reserve. A sport parachute rig is heavier and bulkier. Additionally, prior to jumping, the leg straps on a parachute rig need to be tightened, and to fly in that condition is uncomfortable, and potentially dangerous.

He wore a skydiving sport parachute rig.

Did you ever strap a fire extinguisher to your leg just in case? No? Then what's your point?

I am not playing anything, let alone "devils advocate." There is no indication that the jumper wore a fire extinguisher under his pant leg. Any suggestion that it was a fire extinguisher is purely guesswork.

Which is irrelevant with respect to a fire extinguisher.

gringo

Never mind, you’re right.

The entire event was totally legit. Absolutely nothing at all suspicious about any of it, least of which the giant bottle of probably shampoo or something strapped to a bald man’s leg.

Quack quack neigh. Who knew it was even possible?

edit: after looking at some Bear Spray options on Amazon, and considering the overall shady circumstances behind this accident, I would be willing to concede that the object strapped to Mr Jacob’s leg could indeed be either a fire extinguisher or a large bottle of bear spray.

But again, that begs the question; who straps a bottle of bear spray and/or fire extinguisher to their leg prior to a routine flight?

And how does one strap something like that to a leg in an emergency while simultaneously peeking out an open door looking for a good place to bail out safely land an airplane? Can one find bottle leg straps on Amazon?

I dunno. I’m just not a YouTuber looking to get views.

TipTanks

Nothing to see here. Tragic accident with happy outcome. Man even had nice warm soup strapped to his leg for hike out of canyon after horrific accident.

JohnBurke

No one in this thread has stated, insinuated, suggested, or even hinted at the notion that "the entire event was totally legit." Except you, of course.

Yes, I am right. We do not know what was under the pant leg of the jumper.

If you can communicate in English, and not barnyard sounds, perhaps you can detail exactly why the object is a fire extinguisher? Something other than you guess, you think, you speculate, you imagine, or "quack quack neigh." Can you do that?

If you insist in staying in pre-school barnyard-speak, then let's follow that brilliant line of logic. If it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, you say. Does the object quack, or make any sound whatsoever? Is there a tone, thud, rapping noise, or other sound which might indicate the material, content, or structural make up of the object under the jumper's pant leg? No? How are your comments possibly helpful, or relevant, then? They're not. You're exercising in speculation and guesswork without any basis in fact. It's really not that hard to say, "I don't know what it is, but I see an object." What specific indication makes that object a fire extinguisher, vs. any other object that might be under that pant leg? Anything at all, other than your gut feeling, barnyard intuition, or your wild imagination?

If it "shats like a duck," you say. Did this object "shat?" No? How is this relevant? Setting aside your non-scientific fecal speculation, how does this assertion aid in determining the object under the jumper's pant leg? We do not know what the object is. Are you suggesting that it appears to be roughly the same size and shape as a fire extinguisher? Does this imply that all objects of the same size and shape are fire extinguishers? Or is it just this one?

You've never jumped out of an airplane with ashes strapped to your leg, therefore it couldn't be ashes? Have you ever jumped out of an airplane? If not, then your observation falls flat. Is it true that if you've never done something, then it must not be? That's rather self-centric, if your scale of determination revolves around what you have done. If you haven't done it, then it can't be. Is this so? If true, then we must only determine what it is based on what you've had strapped to your leg when you jumped from an airplane. If you haven't jumped from an airplane, or done so with anything under your pant leg, does that imply that there is nothing in the pictures, nothing under the jumper's pant leg, simply because you haven't done it? You find that logical, in some twisted way?

If this jumper has done something you have not done, then what youv'e done isn't really relevant. It really has no bearing on what this jumper did, or wore, or carried. If you're going to use the duck analogy, then it implies that because a duck has known, familiar properties, anything with those properties is most likely a duck. If you assert that the jumper is carrying a fire extinguisher, then what are the known properties that make the object under the jumper's pant leg a fire extinguisher? Size? Are there not many other objects the same size? Weight? Can you determine weight in those pictures? Shape? Are there not numerous other objects which might have the same shape? Length? Is a fire extinguisher the only object of that length, or to the point of your analogy, are all objects of that length, therefore, fire extinguishers?

What possible reason might one have for wearing a sport parachute rig? Certainly the possibility of using the rig exists, and as the jumper recorded himself doing, it was used. What reason might one have for strapping a fire extinguisher to one's leg and covering it with pants, rendering it inaccessible? In case one's parachute catches fire? In case landing in the brush, one's sneakers catch fire? What reason does one have to suppose, guess, insinuate, imply, or stipulate that the object is a fire extinguisher? Wearing a parachute makes sense, if one is to exit an airplane in flight. Wearing a fire extinguisher, not so much.

Placing an object under one's pant leg when jumping, especially exiting the doorway in the manner he did, makes the object less likely to interfere with the exit.

What the object is, however, is not revealed, nor is it evident from the placement, size, shape, or an photographic or video record. It is simply an object. Insinuation that it is a fire extinguisher is nothing more than guesswork.

If you disagree, back it up and show your work.

gringo

That’s an awful lot of words to say nothing at all.

I already stated, you’re right. The large hard cylindrical object strapped to his leg could be anything. Even the ashes of his dead friend. The ones he showed us, in the small baggie. Because ziplock baggies could inflate at altitude to mimic the shape and size and hardness of a fire extinguisher or a bottle of bear spray or shampoo or something. Apparently.

But I like the idea you threw out, that maybe it was a bottle of shampoo. Because bald guys need shampoo in the event of an off-field landing. It’s obvious, I’m surprised I didn’t think of it myself, but thanks for setting the record straight.

Buuuuuut, since you’re asking why one would possibly strap a fire extinguisher to their leg before bailing out of a perfectly good airplane, hmmm. I dunno. Let me put my thinking cap on… ok. Maybe he anticipated a post crash fire and had an extinguisher handy just in case?

I mean, a handheld extinguisher would have minimal effect on a subsequent brush fire, especially in California, but this entire stunt was so poorly thought out I doubt he even recognized the futility of it.

Or, maybe, as previously posted, it was a can of Bear Spray. Who straps Bear Spray to their legs while flying around in California? Unless they were planning on possibly needing it after jumping out of an airplane for a poorly thought out and sloppily executed YouTube stunt?

Most everybody else would simply keep it in the airplane, accessible after a crash or otherwise off-field landing. Same with a fire extinguisher.

Because I don’t know if you’ve noticed, it’s completely unusual to fly with anything strapped to one’s leg during flight, save maybe a knee pad or an iPad.

you asked the question, “What possible reason might one have for wearing a sport parachute rig?”

Interesting question, considering that apparently, in every one of his previous videos, he never wore a rig of any kind.

Now all of a sudden he claims he “always” wears a parachute? On this one flight? In an airplane he’s never shown before? In any video?

And you believe this?

At the end of the movie “Behind the Curve” Jeranism repeats one thing over and over… “Interesting. Interesting.”

Indeed.

JohnBurke

So, pure speculation and guesswork on your part, then. That's all you need say.

You don't know what the object is, and it could be anything. And yes, I know I'm right, because there's only one right answer: we don't know.

No one has disputed the wisdom of the event. That's not in question. The idiot video'd it and put it online. No need to speculate; it's there for all to see. Self-glory and narcissistic look-at-me amounts to self-incrimination.

What the video and pictures do not show is what's beneath the pant leg. Speculation is the celebration of ignorance; doing so online is the public celebration of one's own.

gringo

It’s not speculation, it’s simply applied logic.

You want to think it’s maybe a bottle of shampoo or a ziplock baggie with a trace amount of ashes, or a fish tank or who knows what, that’s cool. It could very well be.

But I’m willing to wager it’s none of the above. Or anything other than either a fire extinguisher or a can of bear spray...

Hate to go back to the “barnyard animals” shtick, but again, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s almost certainly a duck.

But also perhaps maybe a bottle of Suave.

Who knows?

JohnBurke

No, it's pure speculation. Ignorance. Why celebrate it? Simply be embarrassed by doggedly clinging to ignorance and guesswork. You should be.

There is nothing in the pictures to suggest it's a fire extinguisher. There is nothing in the narrative to suggest it is a fire extinguisher.

You sound like my kids did years ago, when they were too impatient to play 20 questions, to deduce the object. They wanted to guess, without having any basis for the guess. They'd simply pick objects, usually the first thing they'd see. Is it the tree? Is it the cat? Is it the sky? The idea was that eventually they hoped to guess the object, before they ran out of questions. Childish. Immature. Ignorance.

You see an object. You want to identify that object. You guess, out of the clear blue, and try to rationalize your guesswork and speculation by imbuing it with a semblance of intelligent, rational thought, when there is none in evidence. You haven't got a basis for citing a fire extinguisher. There is nothing more than an unknown object visible, hidden beneath a pant leg.

The guesswork is childish, but then not unexpected, given the insistence on quacking and fecal material. Worthy of no further discussion, you are on the ignore list.

gringo

😂😂😂😂😂

Nothing at all.

Totally non-suspicious event, and nobody thinks otherwise.

So. Much. Word salad.

Ignore list indeed dad.

jaxsurf

I mean, it could be a fire extinguisher. The outline of the object certainly seems to have all of the necessary parts (cylinder, nozzle, levers).