Site Burning

[TomAiello 26]

I think "burning" a site (in it's various degrees) means making it less likely that other jumpers will be able to jump the same site.

So, for example, some of our progenitors "burned" a big stone out in California, even though it was legal to jump it at the time.

Doesn't matter if it's legal. If you got that big wall in Southern Norway shut down, I'd say you "burned" it, even if you didn't get caught jumping it. If you got chased out of that valley in California, I'd say you did some "burning" even if you didn't get caught.

Burning a site means making it harder for others to enjoy it.

And, now, I wave the magic moderation wand, and, "presto!" we have a new thread...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[bertusgeert 1]

I understand why sites need to remain unnamed, so that not everyone knows where and when and who, thus protecting it for future jumps. But why places like the wall in Norway and the bridge in WV which are commonly accepted as BASE locations by even just observers. Is it just to stay in the habit? Just because its a rule without exceptions?

and on burning... Could you then burn a site by naming it here?

---------------------------------------------
As jy dom is moet jy bloei!

[leroydb 0]

according to the nazi's "YES"...

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...But why places like the wall in Norway and the bridge in WV which are commonly accepted as BASE locations by even just observers.

The wall in Norway, which has instruction available all season, is one of my specific exceptions. I won't edit that name out. I won't name it myself, as I don't see the benefit of doing so, but the site is organized enough that the damage is limited.

The Bridge? There's a whole other 364 days every year that most skydivers don't think about...

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[motherhucker 0]

Quote

according to the nazi's "YES"...

I choose to not underestimate "the man," or the stupidity of people like:

#10 Jeb Williams, 1986
Antenna Jump
Dallas, Texas, USA
Total Malfunction and Impact
Jeb jumped from a free standing 500-foot antenna tower with skydiving gear and no reported BASE training or expereince. He impacted with nothing out. This jump cemented the cause for dedicated BASE jumping equipment in the BASE community. Talk of a person having a set amount of skydives before BASE jumping is still seven or eight years away. (courtesy of "the list")

The less authorities know about an object, the better chance we have of not getting caught, bottom line. The less info that is posted on this (or any) BASE-related site, the less chance of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing going in and fucking it up for everyone else that way.

I wish it weren't that way...

[TomAiello 26]

Also...

Quote

#51, December 2,1997
Age: 35
Antenna Jump
Tucson, Arizona USA
Impact

He is dead when his feet leave the tower is what other jumpers said after this fatality. Using a skydiving rig not modified for BASE, and without any prior BASE training or experience, he climbed 364-feet up a 450-foot tower and jumped only to find his bungee controlled collapsible pilot chute didn't work well at slow airspeeds. A passer-by found Kennedy's body near the tower the next morning. He had pulled his reserve handle at some point prior to impact. Alcohol may have been a contributing factor in this fatality.

However, I think that:

Quote

The less info that is posted on this (or any) BASE-related site, the less chance of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing going in and fucking it up for everyone else that way.

May be a little harsh.

It's my view that the loss of human life in these cases is far more tragic than the potential loss of an object. As I've said before, I believe that the primary goal of object security is not to protect the objects, it is to protect the over-eager, uninstructed, potential BASE jumper.

Perhaps it's that I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and you're a staunch, heartless, conservative.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[NickDG 23]

Tom, if you edit this again, I'm gone from here . . .

I stayed out of the moderator fray because I think sites like this should be peer regulated. In that vein, and although I understand your intent, I chose to post where I did (within another thread) for a reason. If I wanted to start a new thread on site burning I would have. I don’t want my posts manipulated in that fashion. I now have to defend an off the cuff remark, and if that’s going to be the way of it here, I’m gone.

I don’t want to go into the whole thing right now, but I think we are guilty of taking ourselves and what we are doing too seriously. Very few sites, if any, get burned to the point where they are never jumped again. Time passes, people forget. I really believe we are too paranoid in general, and a more in your face approach to BASE jumping would benefit the sport in the long run. We, all of us, are rebels in the first place, and the best thing to say when cornered is, “Yes, I jumped off that, and if that bothers you, you can go F yourself . . . !”

Site protection is not reason enough to eat our young.

Nick D
BASE 194

[TomAiello 26]

Bringing in posts from removed portions of this thread:

ZegeunerLeben wrote:

Quote

Let me ask you this: If you open up an object, I mean a total cherry, never been jumped, and you and launch during the day time but get away, are you really burning that site? I mean, sure it's bad form and it's hot now, but no one else had access to jump it anyway, so no harm done right?

I responded:

Quote

It depends.

Have you reduced the availability of the site to other jumpers?

That's my personal definition, and I'm sticking to it.

If the site was already at the heart of fortress like security, then, no, you really haven't done much to it. If you were totally unseen despite your daytime escapades, then again, no.

But look at it this way, what if the site was a prime location, and your jump prevented anyone else from ever using it?

What if early jumpers had just given the sheriff the "F-U" when they found the potato state span in the early 90's? We wouldn't have that amazing resource today. So, yes, I'd say they would have "burned" it, even if no one else had ever seen it. Instead, early jumpers at that site worked with local authorities to keep it open and accessible for all of us. Shouldn't we treat those who come after us with the same trust and respect that those before us gave us?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

In general, I agree with Nick. But;

Quote

Time passes, people forget.

I'm not sure about this bit. Once laws have been passed banning BASE at specific sites, they have never been repealed.

With that in mind, I think that "burning" (i.e. behaving in such a manner that local authorities ban jumping) a legal site is the worst offense in the range of "burnings."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Tom, if you edit this again, I'm gone from here . . .

Whoa. Nick? I sent you three PM's about that. I'll gladly put it however you want it to stand. You just got to tell me what you want here.

I made the last edit after your original message, which I (apparently mis-) interpreted as meaning that you wanted your comments removed from the thread.

Could we move this to PM's? I have no wish, or intention, to offend you or have your words be read/taken out of context by anyone here.

Thanks.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnnyUtah 0]

Quote

Tom, if you edit this again, I'm gone from here . . .

I stayed out of the moderator fray because I think sites like this should be peer regulated. In that vein, and although I understand your intent, I chose to post where I did (within another thread) for a reason. If I wanted to start a new thread on site burning I would have. I don’t want my posts manipulated in that fashion. I now have to defend an off the cuff remark, and if that’s going to be the way of it here, I’m gone.

I don’t want to go into the whole thing right now, but I think we are guilty of taking ourselves and what we are doing too seriously. Very few sites, if any, get burned to the point where they are never jumped again. Time passes, people forget. I really believe we are too paranoid in general, and a more in your face approach to BASE jumping would benefit the sport in the long run. We, all of us, are rebels in the first place, and the best thing to say when cornered is, “Yes, I jumped off that, and if that bothers you, you can go F yourself . . . !”

Site protection is not reason enough to eat our young.

Nick D
BASE 194

Nick,
I totally understand how you feel. I have also been taken out of context by moderators(Tom and Hooknswoop) splitting the thread and starting a new thread with a post I made as a reply. This kind of post manipulation can indeed take the user out of context in an uncool way. It is unfair to the poster.

When someone reads a reply within the thread it was posted, it is in context and that person can better understand where the poster is coming from. When taken out of its original thread, the post is then out of context and can be misconstrued. If you notice, I dont post here as much as I used too. I simply got tired of my communications being messed with. It sucks because I would like to feel free to post my thoughts to my fellow BASE jumpers more often without my post being manipulated.

Tom,
See what I mean? We have talked about this very thing a few times (in the past and lately). Splitting someones post from a thread can indeed take them out of context. Tom please dont think Im just trying to get on your case, Im not, and I do like you as a person. This is a real issue with people. It is my opinion that you should only split a post from a thread if you have consent from the author to do so. Of course you can wave your magic moderation wand and manipulate post in this fashion if you want, but as you can see, posters get mad.

Im just being straight forward with you dude and I hope you dont hold some kind of grudge against me for voicing my opinions.

Have Fun, Don't Die!
Johnny Utah
My Website
email:johnny@johnnyutah.com

[TomAiello 26]

Yup. I think Johnny is right.

From something he wrote elsewhere:

Quote

If a moderator wants to move or split a thread, asking the poster first is a good move...

I shall henceforth adopt this as my unofficial policy on this forum. Feel free to call me on it if I screw it up.

From here on out, I'll PM people before splitting their posts out of threads.

If I think it's an important topic, I will, of course, feel free to start my own discussion about it.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Jasmin 0]

Tom, I honestly think you and others take the naming sites thing far too anally at times. Many sites (eg KL, bridgeday) are public knowledge and reported in the media. A search on Google will pull them up in a couple of seconds.

[I]However,[/I] there have been some nasty consequences from sites being named/ photo'd/ filmed/ listed online. So yes, there is some sense to keeping unpublicised sites unnamed.

[base283 0]

Quote

Quote

according to the nazi's "YES"...

I choose to not underestimate "the man," or the stupidity of people like:

#10 Jeb Williams, 1986

I totally disagree. Jeb died on his 5th or 6th BASE jump. Most likely, 99% of all jumps were done on skydiving gear during this time. There were only 2 base rigs on the market at that time (JD walker and TNT) and ideas like bigger PCs were just rearing their head.
Jeb died proving that a normal skydiving PC doesn´t work well from 500ft. As far as I know, He was the first to die from using too small of a PC. Giving you, me and the rest of the world the The knowledge that you apparently take for granted about the use of larger PC in subterminal. There was ignorance on that jump surely, but no stupidity. Jeb is an Icon as his pioneering death set the stage for the PC age in BASE.
take care,
space

[Faber 0]

Quote

Jeb died proving that a normal skydiving PC doesn´t work well from 500ft.

well i will agree whith that,but...

Quote

As far as I know, He was the first to die from using too small of a PC. Giving you, me and the rest of the world the The knowledge that you apparently take for granted about the use of larger PC in subterminal.

Aint people moveing down wards again??? I mean,not to the size of a skydive pc..But as an example my biggest pc is a 46´zp pc whith loadtaps,i use it freefaling 180ft,only time i had a poroblem were as i used a vented 46´av zp pc which had a small hessi.,it gave me a short canopy ride but i were ok(for that reasson i dont use vented pc´s under 200ft anymore)...
Last time i were in UK a(unnamed)guy used my 42áv zp pc to freefall 230ft on a unvented canopyserval times,whith no problem..
I know serval people dont owe a bigger pc than a 46 aswell and jump the way i and some others does..

I do agree what Space says,that Jeb did show somthing,that using the right pc for the right job is demanded,sadly he had to did doing this..

Tom,feel free to split this it you want(now you dont havre to pm me

Stay safe
Stefan Faber

[nicknitro71 0]

Quote

Tom, I honestly think you and others take the naming sites thing far too anally at times.

He does. He also makes exceptions if you are one of his buddies. If you belong to that group you get away with site naming, sarcasm, personal attacks, and so on.

Naming legal sites like the wall in Norway, Italy, the one-day-deal bridge and others should be allowed.

Memento Audere Semper

903

[TomAiello 26]

Nick,

I know we've covered this in PM's, but since you want to discuss it here...

Quote

Naming legal sites like the wall in Norway, Italy, the one-day-deal bridge and others should be allowed.

As I have stated (see the "Before You Post" link) I will leave in the name of sites where instruction is commonly available. This includes the terminal wall in Southern Norway.

As I discussed earlier in this thread, I believe that the problems with naming the bridge day site do not revolve around Bridge Day itself, but rather around the other 364 days of every year, when the object sits there without supervision (unless you count the NPS).

Given that the locals at the terminal wall in Italy have requested:

Quote

Would you mind NOT to mention site's names on the BASE Board, please?
Leave it alone the name of our terminal wall, that, unfortunately, is famous, by now (we would have preferred not...), but, please, please, please, STOP mentioning on the Internet the names of other sites.
Thanks so much.
Stay safe out there
Blue Skies and Soft Walls
BASE #689, a concerned local

I will continue to edit out the names of these sites.

You may feel that as an American, you are the ruler of the world and can establish rules for the little people in other countries to follow. I think this kind of attitude is one reason that Americans are so detested by people in many other countries.

If, after they have made a polite request, you wish to tell the locals to go screw themselves, you are welcome to do so in places other than this forum.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

He also makes exceptions if you are one of his buddies.

Please PM me with details of any case in which you have seen this. I'll be happy to go back and have a look at anything I may have missed.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[skydivegirl 0]

Quote

Quote

He also makes exceptions if you are one of his buddies.

Please PM me with details of any case in which you have seen this. I'll be happy to go back and have a look at anything I may have missed.

It's not just Tom... I've noticed if the person that names a well known site is a BASE jumper, it is accepted. But if the person is not a BASE jumper, they get shit for it. I don't know if it's just to make sure the non-BASE jumper knows the rules or if it's a double standard.

Example:
Thread I posted in...

A search for this site name in this forum...

In any case, it doesn't hurt to just leave names out regardless.

Pink Mafia Sis #26

[mickknutson 0]

Quote

Quote

according to the nazi's "YES"...

I choose to not underestimate "the man," or the stupidity of people like:

#10 Jeb Williams, 1986
Antenna Jump
Dallas, Texas, USA
Total Malfunction and Impact
Jeb jumped from a free standing 500-foot antenna tower with skydiving gear and no reported BASE training or expereince. He impacted with nothing out. This jump cemented the cause for dedicated BASE jumping equipment in the BASE community. Talk of a person having a set amount of skydives before BASE jumping is still seven or eight years away. (courtesy of "the list")

The less authorities know about an object, the better chance we have of not getting caught, bottom line. The less info that is posted on this (or any) BASE-related site, the less chance of someone who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing going in and fucking it up for everyone else that way.

I wish it weren't that way...

I have been trying to make this same point for years, and until your posting now, I don't think I ever said it right! I think this is right on the point!

it is not just the authorities, it is the unskilled, un-intelligent person. No I didn't say jumper, as not all 1st time BASE jumps are dont by jumpers of any kind.
I have seen high school students jumping off bridges before. SCARY!

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."

[mickknutson 0]

Absolutely

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."

[mickknutson 0]

Quote

Tom, if you edit this again, I'm gone from here . . .

I stayed out of the moderator fray because I think sites like this should be peer regulated. In that vein, and although I understand your intent, I chose to post where I did (within another thread) for a reason. If I wanted to start a new thread on site burning I would have. I don’t want my posts manipulated in that fashion. I now have to defend an off the cuff remark, and if that’s going to be the way of it here, I’m gone.

I don’t want to go into the whole thing right now, but I think we are guilty of taking ourselves and what we are doing too seriously. Very few sites, if any, get burned to the point where they are never jumped again. Time passes, people forget. I really believe we are too paranoid in general, and a more in your face approach to BASE jumping would benefit the sport in the long run. We, all of us, are rebels in the first place, and the best thing to say when cornered is, “Yes, I jumped off that, and if that bothers you, you can go F yourself . . . !”

Site protection is not reason enough to eat our young.

Nick D
BASE 194

I don't think we should be eating our young, but when I started jumping, I was FORCED to go with an experienced jumper. I actually then hooked up with several top notch jumpers, and was TAUGHT what I needed to know, instead of just winging it!

This is what I mean when I talk about the site naming. Why allow an eager jumper kill him/herself instead of forcing them into earning it by doing to work to actually LEARN what really is needed instead of hoping darwing takes over?

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."

[mickknutson 0]

Quote

Bringing in posts from removed portions of this thread:

ZegeunerLeben wrote:

Quote

Let me ask you this: If you open up an object, I mean a total cherry, never been jumped, and you and launch during the day time but get away, are you really burning that site? I mean, sure it's bad form and it's hot now, but no one else had access to jump it anyway, so no harm done right?

I responded:

Quote

It depends.

Have you reduced the availability of the site to other jumpers?

That's my personal definition, and I'm sticking to it.

If the site was already at the heart of fortress like security, then, no, you really haven't done much to it. If you were totally unseen despite your daytime escapades, then again, no.

But look at it this way, what if the site was a prime location, and your jump prevented anyone else from ever using it?

What if early jumpers had just given the sheriff the "F-U" when they found the potato state span in the early 90's? We wouldn't have that amazing resource today. So, yes, I'd say they would have "burned" it, even if no one else had ever seen it. Instead, early jumpers at that site worked with local authorities to keep it open and accessible for all of us. Shouldn't we treat those who come after us with the same trust and respect that those before us gave us?

In response to ZegeunerLeben.....

I think YES, you burned That site. The degree of burning might not be fully know, but there will be charing...
But...............
That is only the start!
If a "BASE-Jumper" is acting in a burning manner, then waffos will steriotype ALL BASE-Jumpers.
So, if there are several other objects in the same area/region that have gone unburned for years maybe, with this one act, people start opening up there eyes as they are pissed off that some punk is acting in a way that is telling them to "kiss my ###". This is what people are going to think. Then, that super sweet object that you have tried to protect so well, is now also under scrutiny by everyone.

I was taught that 95% of all base jumps are never known by anyone.

Just my 2cents...

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."

[mickknutson 0]

Quote

In general, I agree with Nick. But;

Quote

Time passes, people forget.

I'm not sure about this bit. Once laws have been passed banning BASE at specific sites, they have never been repealed.

With that in mind, I think that "burning" (i.e. behaving in such a manner that local authorities ban jumping) a legal site is the worst offense in the range of "burnings."

The NPS still remembers names of people they busted in the 80's. They do not forget!

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."

[mickknutson 0]

Quote

Quote

Tom, I honestly think you and others take the naming sites thing far too anally at times.

He does. He also makes exceptions if you are one of his buddies. If you belong to that group you get away with site naming, sarcasm, personal attacks, and so on.

Naming legal sites like the wall in Norway, Italy, the one-day-deal bridge and others should be allowed.

I don't think I would agree at all with your "buddies" statement.

He allows certain things to be posted at times. The wall in Norway, the Cave in Mexico, the cliff in Italy, the Building in Malaysia etc....
I don't think it has anything to do with buddies.

Mick Knutson
* BLiNC Magazine "Everything you ever wanted to know about Parachuting, but didn't know whom to ask."