Leaderboard

I've begun my experiments. Here is a photo of the first test. Wish us luck!

I am 100 percent sure that some of the folks I have spoke with about their sightings are telling the truth about what they saw...But that doesn't quite take me to being 100 percent sure of it's existence. I would say I am around 95%. I just have a lot of questions that haven't been answered....yet. I haven't seen one. I don't necessarily have to see one to believe without a doubt that they exist. But I guess I do need to see some undeniable proof or at least know that undeniable proof has been found and documented.

My 90 foot tall tree, with canopy on 60% of it's height, would exert 195,000 pounds of force on the tree trunk, in a 50 mph wind, with 30% crown density Table 3: The estimated force (total pounds of force) on tree crowns across various heights in feet and various living crown ratios (total height of living crown/total height of tree) under standard conditions. Standard conditions are 30% crown density (30% drag on wind) and 50mph wind velocity. http://warnell.forestry.uga.edu/service/library/index.php3?docID=400&docHistory%5B%5D=2&docHistory%5B%5D=413

It would take someone killing a Sasquatch for you to see how sad our civilization is? Where the heck have you been? :-)

I would like to present a roughly scaled image I created, to show the absurdity of this situation. The mass of a 24" diameter tree DWARFS the mass of a 700 lb Ape. Does anyone honestly think that a 24" hardwood tree would be snapped off by such a minuscule dynamic force?

When a claim is unbelievable then what is the proper response WSA? I don't know what did it, but let's all act like it was bigfoot and deny any other explanations presented? That does not seem reasonable. It seems perfectly fine and proper to respond to the wildly unbelievable with " I don't believe you". Where in the world does it say every outlandish claim must be humored? Or does that golden rule only apply to BF claims made by BF proponents? I know you want to whitewash this with a veneer of child like curiosity. But this is not the case. This is a claim presented to adults that does not stand up to even the mildest of scrutiny. And then you want to chide people for questioning it? The explanation given does not make any sense. Even if such a beast as a wood ape existed, the explanation still does not make sense. Why do you insist on sticking your foot in the door for bigfoot as the explanation? Just because we may not know what did it, does not mean we cannot reasonably state what did NOT do it. And it does not seem possible for any animal to have done this. Do you not agree? Or is your answer more along the lines of " Yes, except for bigfoot?"

It seems bears do throw rocks at times: " Assuming Bipto related the event accurately, who amongst our opponent delegation is willing to agree with me that we don't know what that was?" Uhm, every opponent? Based on the available evidence, i.e. none, I don't see how anyone can claim to know exactly what happened, be they proponent or "opponent" What gave you any idea otherwise? Not knowing does not equal "wood ape".

I don't know why this thread has descended into an intricate audit of every observation that is reported, it is disappointing and a distraction. They report their experiences in the field, that's all. On the other hand, if these events are actually occurring, could not a picture or video be obtained? It matters not, time will tell. If the events are occurring, eventually evidence will be produced. If they are not, claim upon claim upon claim will start to ring hollow and sort itself out over time. IMO, there is a clock (or count) running as far as public opinion goes. Hope events are occurring as described, I'm rooting for the team and wish them good luck!