Septic skeptic wrote:
Story linked from the LR homepage:
I call BS on it being 100ft.
Neglecting wind resistance (which would make the jump take slightly longer) a 100 ft jump should take 2.49 seconds (t = sqrt[d/(1/2g)]). He seems to be airborne for barely half that time, so the distance would be way less than half of 100 feet. In the first second you only fall 16 feet, and 47 feet in the 2nd second.
Not that we could expect any better from the Daily Mail.
I'm more concerned that the Daily Mail wrote "should'd". What could that even mean?