Leaderboard

Who are you claiming is a reasonable person? You have not walked away. You're still here, still participating in the discussion. If you walked away, I don't think anyone would argue with you, but if you're here arguing the other side of the issue, of course people who know you are wrong are going to argue. I think you probably know this but I'll point it out anyway: it's not about you changing sides, it's about you being wrong. MIB

Dang it! Another worthy driven from the field due to BF's inability to adhere to his expect timetable. Have they no common decency! Crowlogic, you continue to be frustrated because this confirmation event hasn't happen within a period that you (rather arbitrarily, I might add) have determined to be the necessary amount of time. To which, I just have to reply, "Says who?" There is no timetable, no statute of limitations, no end of season....none of that exists except in the mind of the impatient. Those who cannot, or will not, accept that idea will be driven either to distraction (happens a lot) or to hard-boiled skepticism (ditto). As a root of skepticism, that has to be one of the weakest, I just think.

As I quoted a primatologist over in another thread concerning this matter... UZH primatologist Thomas Geissmann criticized the actions of the NAWAC. "I am sure that it is not necessary to kill a specimen. I have described several new species of monkeys and never had to kill an animal for it. " In 2005 Geissmann and colleague Urs Thalmann described a new lemur species. Hair as well as photo and video material and audio recordings were enough. “It takes just a few hairs of a Bigfoot to unambiguously tell if it exists and what it is.†If the Falcon Project can do anything toward discovery apart from killing a specimen then I am 100% on board, and given the approach that has been spelled out for the project I think they stand a very good chance of succeeding, expert tracking is key, being able to locate them repeatably is vital to actually getting the needed collection of evidence. Nathan there are plenty of people supporting this research concept, the naysayers are just looking for something to shoot at, pardon the pun...

Drew has another good point. One of the big problems with a blimp or dirigible is wind penetration because of its huge frontal surface. It is by design that the German dirigibles, and the more modern Navy blimps and Goodyear blimps right up to the present are cigar shaped to minimize frontal area while getting the cubic feet to produce lift with the elongated shape. More blimps have crashed due to wind than any other reason. The Hindenburg was pretty much a freak accident and unique. So the double bag thing appears to me to increase frontal area and thereby make it more susceptible to wind gusts. Not to mention the problem of trying to equalize lift and prevent list side to side. I suppose the Falcon folks will respond that they will spend more time hovering and not really going anywhere so frontal area is not a factor. That is where lack of aviation experience is telling. At their purported 4000 operational altitude, the normal wind flow at that altitude is a significant percentage of their projected maximum cruise speed. Just staying put and hovering into the wind to loiter will require airspeeds 10 to 15 knots on a calm day. Over mountain ridges it can be more than that and introduce up and down drafts that can even make it difficult for higher powered conventional aircraft to maintain altitude. An airship could well not have enough power to overcome downdrafts that will force it down into the trees. I just looked and the winds at 4000 over the PNW are about 10 knots. 15 knots is their stated limits. If they wait for calm winds at altitude, they might have to wait weeks between suitable windows to fly.