This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Is this a real shot or is it photoshopped. If it is teal just cant see hhere he is going to land, at the bottom of the zawn if I remember rightly if I remember rightly from my visits there. From what I can remember it,s a bloody big gap, and gets its name after a huntsman jumped it on a horse, remember thinking that it was a long way for a horse to even jump if it is a proper phot well done to the jumper and what ever you do dont show this shot to his mother. Also if it is real how long is the jump is it a downward jump and where is this bloke going to land. Its not in the log book .
In reply to Russell Lovett:
A link would be useful - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=241363 Historically, this has been jumped a number of times, usually though with some sort of "safety" rope (i.e. splat into the side of the zawn instead of hit the bottom). I also believe one un-roped attempt ended in faiure on the chockstones.
A link would be useful - http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=241363 Historically, this has been jumped a number of times, usually though with some sort of "safety" rope (i.e. splat into the side of the zawn instead of hit the bottom). I also believe one un-roped attempt ended in faiure on the chockstones.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
yes morgan jumped the leap, video on facebook. i belive for once he used a rope (thank god)
yes morgan jumped the leap, video on facebook. i belive for once he used a rope (thank god)
In reply to Russell Lovett:
<<... what ever you do dont show this shot to his mother .>>
I expect those of us lucky enough to have mothers all have quite a collection of climbing occasions we don't want to tell them about!
<<... what ever you do dont show this shot to his mother .>>
I expect those of us lucky enough to have mothers all have quite a collection of climbing occasions we don't want to tell them about!
In reply to Russell Lovett:
Far more pertinant question: I wonder if the toaster they used to take the pic does 2 slices of bread or if it's one of those 4 slice things?
Far more pertinant question: I wonder if the toaster they used to take the pic does 2 slices of bread or if it's one of those 4 slice things?
In reply to Russell Lovett:
Having looked long and hard at said jump in the flesh thinking about possibilities (from both directions) its (not having measured it) probably around 8 feet.
i.e. its just slightly longer than most people would feel happy jumping given there's a s*dding great drop.
Worse, the ground on either side is (IIRC) quite broken making the take-off and landing eminently fluffable.
I'd do it with a belay, but not without...
Having looked long and hard at said jump in the flesh thinking about possibilities (from both directions) its (not having measured it) probably around 8 feet.
i.e. its just slightly longer than most people would feel happy jumping given there's a s*dding great drop.
Worse, the ground on either side is (IIRC) quite broken making the take-off and landing eminently fluffable.
I'd do it with a belay, but not without...
Post edited at 23:12
In reply to simon rawlinson:
Why are there so many artefacts around the figure if it isn't photoshopped?
> yes morgan jumped the leap, video on facebook. i belive for once he used a rope (thank god)
Why are there so many artefacts around the figure if it isn't photoshopped?
In reply to tlm:
Because its a capture from a low quality mobile phone video I believe. I saw the vid on facebook, its real.
Because its a capture from a low quality mobile phone video I believe. I saw the vid on facebook, its real.
In reply to tlm:
Why are people so keen to call people liars ?
At a rough guess ( knowing jack diddly about photoshop and photography in general ) it's a still from the video. Not photo quality and so when you blow it up to photo size it looks blocky and crap.
If the rest of the pic was sharp and clear and the figure looked like pacman stuck on there i'd be inclined to agree with you, but still wouldn't care unless they were claiming something important they hadn't done. If they have or haven't done it and chosen to lie or tell the truth does it matter to you in your day to day life? I for one can't stand it and find it hard to sleep at night knowing that people may have photoshopped something of no relevance to anyone else in order to make themselves look better. Not that i think they have on this occasion so i can sleep soundly.
As the poster has mentioned the video is available on facebook maybe they have also had access to mainstream Hollywood style CGI green screen technology at great cost just to make up the fact that someone did a big, daring jump when they didn't really. If they have gone to all that time and trouble i'd say fair enough.
It's not very likely though is it ? Much more likely that it's a still from a video and his mate has stuck a pic of it on here.
Nothing to see here, move along please and put your placards and banners of acusation down.
Why are people so keen to call people liars ?
At a rough guess ( knowing jack diddly about photoshop and photography in general ) it's a still from the video. Not photo quality and so when you blow it up to photo size it looks blocky and crap.
If the rest of the pic was sharp and clear and the figure looked like pacman stuck on there i'd be inclined to agree with you, but still wouldn't care unless they were claiming something important they hadn't done. If they have or haven't done it and chosen to lie or tell the truth does it matter to you in your day to day life? I for one can't stand it and find it hard to sleep at night knowing that people may have photoshopped something of no relevance to anyone else in order to make themselves look better. Not that i think they have on this occasion so i can sleep soundly.
As the poster has mentioned the video is available on facebook maybe they have also had access to mainstream Hollywood style CGI green screen technology at great cost just to make up the fact that someone did a big, daring jump when they didn't really. If they have gone to all that time and trouble i'd say fair enough.
It's not very likely though is it ? Much more likely that it's a still from a video and his mate has stuck a pic of it on here.
Nothing to see here, move along please and put your placards and banners of acusation down.
In reply to biscuit:
Uh??????? Where on earth did you get this from? I just asked a question about the quality of the photo!!! The cliffs are blurry, but don't have artefacts, but the person does. I know naff all about photo quality so asked about it.
> Why are people so keen to call people liars ?
Uh??????? Where on earth did you get this from? I just asked a question about the quality of the photo!!! The cliffs are blurry, but don't have artefacts, but the person does. I know naff all about photo quality so asked about it.
In reply to tlm:
You get many more artefacts around something that is moving on a video.
You get many more artefacts around something that is moving on a video.
Post edited at 08:55
In reply to tlm:
Because you said:
Sounds like an accusation to me. I may be wrong but the inference i get from it is that you believe it to be photoshopped or else there wouldn't be artefacts ( is that the blockiness ?) around the jumper.
Apologies if i got it wrong but to me you were clearly implying you thought it was photoshopped despite the poster saying it wasn't.
Because you said:
> Why are there so many artefacts around the figure if it isn't photoshopped?
Sounds like an accusation to me. I may be wrong but the inference i get from it is that you believe it to be photoshopped or else there wouldn't be artefacts ( is that the blockiness ?) around the jumper.
Apologies if i got it wrong but to me you were clearly implying you thought it was photoshopped despite the poster saying it wasn't.
In reply to biscuit:
Well, that's come from you, because it didn't come from me.
> Apologies if i got it wrong but to me you were clearly implying you thought it was photoshopped despite the poster saying it wasn't.
Well, that's come from you, because it didn't come from me.
In reply to Escher:
Thanks.
> You get many more artefacts around something that is moving on a video.
Thanks.
In reply to tlm:
Let me check...
yup it was you who typed it.
It may just be a text based conversation thing but normally when there has been discussion about whether something is fake or not, and the person who took it says it's real, when someone comes along and says if it's real ( or if it's not photoshopped as you said ) then why is there this evidence that suggests otherwise ( or why are there artefacts around the figure as you said).
So to me you were saying if it's not fake why are there artefacts around it ? If you were just interested in the technical side of things you could just have asked why are there aretefacts around the figure without mentioning the if it isn't photoshopped bit.
Anyhow as i said i may not have got the tone of your text as you meant it. It's not worth falling out over as i am sure we've both got better things to do today.
But i still reckon you were calling him a fibber
Let me check...
yup it was you who typed it.
It may just be a text based conversation thing but normally when there has been discussion about whether something is fake or not, and the person who took it says it's real, when someone comes along and says if it's real ( or if it's not photoshopped as you said ) then why is there this evidence that suggests otherwise ( or why are there artefacts around the figure as you said).
So to me you were saying if it's not fake why are there artefacts around it ? If you were just interested in the technical side of things you could just have asked why are there aretefacts around the figure without mentioning the if it isn't photoshopped bit.
Anyhow as i said i may not have got the tone of your text as you meant it. It's not worth falling out over as i am sure we've both got better things to do today.
But i still reckon you were calling him a fibber
In reply to biscuit:
yeah yeah - you know what I meant better than I do....
> Anyhow as i said i may not have got the tone of your text as you meant it. It's not worth falling out over as i am sure we've both got better things to do today.
> But i still reckon you were calling him a fibber
yeah yeah - you know what I meant better than I do....
In reply to tlm:
In fairness it does read as though you were accusing, whether you meant it that way or not.
In fairness it does read as though you were accusing, whether you meant it that way or not.
In reply to simon rawlinson:
Any chance of a link to that?
> yes morgan jumped the leap, video on facebook. i belive for once he used a rope (thank god)
Any chance of a link to that?
In reply to Tyler:
If you choose to read it that way - I guess some people think in that sort of a way...
> In fairness it does read as though you were accusing, whether you meant it that way or not.
If you choose to read it that way - I guess some people think in that sort of a way...
In reply to tlm:
1. make baseless accusation
2. get called out
3. backpedal furiously, attempt to gain high ground by claiming you never made an accusation in the first place.
Anyway, if anyone incompetently shopped that then the boundary would be cleaner than the surrounding pixels. If it was someone good you wouldn't even know.
1. make baseless accusation
2. get called out
3. backpedal furiously, attempt to gain high ground by claiming you never made an accusation in the first place.
Anyway, if anyone incompetently shopped that then the boundary would be cleaner than the surrounding pixels. If it was someone good you wouldn't even know.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
I just love how a UKC thread can explode into tit for tat arguments over the most trivial of comments. It really does make for great spectator sport
I just love how a UKC thread can explode into tit for tat arguments over the most trivial of comments. It really does make for great spectator sport
In reply to Russell Lovett:
All the finger pointing and hiding aside, it looks like a cracking leap! I am now sorely tempted to have a go. With a rope natch.
All the finger pointing and hiding aside, it looks like a cracking leap! I am now sorely tempted to have a go. With a rope natch.
In reply to Tyler:
I guess that's your reaction to stuff you are seeing that I am not posting again? It's quite entertaining!
> Wow!
I guess that's your reaction to stuff you are seeing that I am not posting again? It's quite entertaining!
In reply to davidbeynon:
1. Ask innocent question, based on outdated knowledge.
2. Fire off people's imaginations.
3. Stop worrying about trying to put it right....
> 1. make baseless accusation
> 2. get called out
> 3. backpedal furiously, attempt to gain high ground by claiming you never made an accusation in the first place.
> Anyway, if anyone incompetently shopped that then the boundary would be cleaner than the surrounding pixels. If it was someone good you wouldn't even know.
1. Ask innocent question, based on outdated knowledge.
2. Fire off people's imaginations.
3. Stop worrying about trying to put it right....
In reply to Johnny_Grunwald:
My only regret is taking the thread off topic. Looks like a very ballsy thing to do and shame it's not in better quality.Hats off to the gent concerned.
My ( very out of character ) response was due to the fact that i don't think it's trivial to accuse someone of lying ( whether he did or not is a moot point here i am explaining why i did what i did ) and it goes on a lot on here. By doing so i too have become guilty of acting like the kind of internet twerp i get annoyed by
> I just love how a UKC thread can explode into tit for tat arguments over the most trivial of comments. It really does make for great spectator sport
My only regret is taking the thread off topic. Looks like a very ballsy thing to do and shame it's not in better quality.Hats off to the gent concerned.
My ( very out of character ) response was due to the fact that i don't think it's trivial to accuse someone of lying ( whether he did or not is a moot point here i am explaining why i did what i did ) and it goes on a lot on here. By doing so i too have become guilty of acting like the kind of internet twerp i get annoyed by
In reply to tlm:
Not normally no, but your post made me think that ay. Maybe it's because it reads that way, whether it was meant or not and not just to me it appears.
If the conversation took place face to face it may be different but
"Why are there so many artefacts around the figure if it isn't photoshopped? "
Has " if it isn't photoshopped ? " on the end of it. That strongly suggests that you feel it has been photoshopped, ergo the poster is telling porkies by claiming otherwise.
I accepted that it may just have come across wrongly in text rather than face to face communication i.e i'm able to consider i may be wrong or have mis understood it. However your attitude of everyone else must be wrong and i'm right seems to back up my initial thought tbh. A simple: " It was just typed quickly and now i've re read it i can see your point, but it wasn't meant that way." would have worked wonders.
Right i really must get on with packing for going away for the weekend rather than setting the world to rights one thread at a time.
This self righteous posting stuff is a bit addictive isn't it ?
Apologies again for going off topic. I too would love to see the fb link of the vid. It looks awesome.
> If you choose to read it that way - I guess some people think in that sort of a way...
Not normally no, but your post made me think that ay. Maybe it's because it reads that way, whether it was meant or not and not just to me it appears.
If the conversation took place face to face it may be different but
"Why are there so many artefacts around the figure if it isn't photoshopped? "
Has " if it isn't photoshopped ? " on the end of it. That strongly suggests that you feel it has been photoshopped, ergo the poster is telling porkies by claiming otherwise.
I accepted that it may just have come across wrongly in text rather than face to face communication i.e i'm able to consider i may be wrong or have mis understood it. However your attitude of everyone else must be wrong and i'm right seems to back up my initial thought tbh. A simple: " It was just typed quickly and now i've re read it i can see your point, but it wasn't meant that way." would have worked wonders.
Right i really must get on with packing for going away for the weekend rather than setting the world to rights one thread at a time.
This self righteous posting stuff is a bit addictive isn't it ?
Apologies again for going off topic. I too would love to see the fb link of the vid. It looks awesome.
In reply to biscuit:
Well take solace in the fact that we all get drawn into such arguments sometimes. I've have spent a whole afternoon arguing semantics on here before catching a grip of myself For what it's worth I actually agree that it was a ballsy thing to do and I had also read the photoshopping comment as casting doubt on the act rather than a question on photo quality. <Darn it! I let myself get drawn into the debate! >
> (In reply to Johnny_Grunwald)
>
> [...]
>
By doing so i too have become guilty of acting like the kind of internet twerp i get annoyed by >
> [...]
>
Well take solace in the fact that we all get drawn into such arguments sometimes. I've have spent a whole afternoon arguing semantics on here before catching a grip of myself For what it's worth I actually agree that it was a ballsy thing to do and I had also read the photoshopping comment as casting doubt on the act rather than a question on photo quality. <Darn it! I let myself get drawn into the debate! >
In reply to Russell Lovett:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154306873995714&set=gm.150212... Along the same lines, but...
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154306873995714&set=gm.150212... Along the same lines, but...
In reply to davidbeynon:
It isn't backpedalling it's maintaining a position.
> (In reply to tlm)
>
> 1. make baseless accusation
> 2. get called out
> 3. backpedal furiously, attempt to gain high ground by claiming you never made an accusation in the first place.
>
>
> 1. make baseless accusation
> 2. get called out
> 3. backpedal furiously, attempt to gain high ground by claiming you never made an accusation in the first place.
>
It isn't backpedalling it's maintaining a position.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
The leap is nowhere near as big a deal as is made out. 8 feet sounds about right, I've done it a few times. You scramble down a bit and pick a spot, different spots are best depending on direction. You'd have to jump much further on horseback though.
The leap is nowhere near as big a deal as is made out. 8 feet sounds about right, I've done it a few times. You scramble down a bit and pick a spot, different spots are best depending on direction. You'd have to jump much further on horseback though.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
youtube.com/watch?v=fzC1AgM-394& Not as funny as this one and all the bitching comments above.
youtube.com/watch?v=fzC1AgM-394& Not as funny as this one and all the bitching comments above.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
The incredible thing is - he's actually jumping onto a bench that I had placed there. Look carefully.
The incredible thing is - he's actually jumping onto a bench that I had placed there. Look carefully.
In reply to Russell Lovett:
Think I may have opened a can of worms looking at the other posts. If it had been shopped so what and as it is now obvious that it has not and has been done quite a few times roped and not im very imprest. As for the size of the gap I was using a memory that goes back to the early 1980,s when I was last there memory playing tricks as I was thinking it was nearer 15 feet. Even at 8 feet think this is still a ballsy jump as failiour if unroped is unthinkable. Will this become the Indian face of jumps or are the more inpresive jumps out there that have already been done?
Think I may have opened a can of worms looking at the other posts. If it had been shopped so what and as it is now obvious that it has not and has been done quite a few times roped and not im very imprest. As for the size of the gap I was using a memory that goes back to the early 1980,s when I was last there memory playing tricks as I was thinking it was nearer 15 feet. Even at 8 feet think this is still a ballsy jump as failiour if unroped is unthinkable. Will this become the Indian face of jumps or are the more inpresive jumps out there that have already been done?
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...