Cotter Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 TWe will just have to see how long I last against reporting someone with a higher position and a constituency here. Hi David: I can assure you, you will be treated fairly. Even the admin/mods get warnings occasionally. So, if it violates the rules, report away.
Cotter Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi All:I just broke the tree. Using Drew's previous 200,000 lbs of force required to snap a 24" tree at the location, I've been messing around with some...well..math.... OK. A 700 lb force could outboard on a branch, then run along the branch at 20 mph (an easy feat for a BF, no?). When that force meets the tree and stops, the resultant force is 6,256 lbs. 6,256 lbs at 45 feet creates a 281,520 ft.lb torque at the base of the tree. Boom. Solved. Wag, if yer still out there, you owe me 20 bux. 3
WSA Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) I think full-on relativism is a doomed management practice, as it is being applied here. This is not political speech we're defending to the hilt, after all. If you think you can have a discourse with someone who scoffs at the very precept you are trying to discuss, you are seriously mistaken. We've allowed a nice little protected niche for some to vent the full force of their disbelief, and I'm here to tell you that only some of that has to do with this subject. When and if this field grows up enough to exercise the full force of its convictions, we will be further along the road to getting explanations that satisfy us. It is episodes like this that convince me we have a long way to go to arrive there. Flat rejection of the premise, veiled as "testing the evidence" should not be tolerated if any progress is going to be made. Since I'm in a rule making frame of mind, here's another I'd propose, to be posted top/center of the BFF Forum, and I'm only partially joking about it: The preponderance of the evidence at this stage of investigation points to the existence of an unclassified, bipedal animal of unknown nature and origin, and of which we have limited knowledge of morphology, habitat preferences, diet, behavior, mating/reproductive requirements and capacity for communication. All those who are willing to accept this premise and discuss this subject to try and arrive at a greater understanding are welcome. By definition, all those who flatly oppose this premise will have a very limited ability to contribute to the greater understanding of the evidence of this animal. Attempts by those individuals to divert discussion to a debate of this premise will not be tolerated. At what point do you trust yourself and others and make your case? If you are not willing to do this, slap this at the top: (But we don't believe ourselves to the extent where we won't tolerate those who believe we are all crazy or liars). And Cotter, you will never be right to someone who rejects your premise. Ever. (But I'm always impressed by someone who can work numbers like that...) Edited July 9, 2014 by WSA
Rockape Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 (edited) Since I'm in a rule making frame of mind, here's another I'd propose, to be posted top/center of the BFF Forum, and I'm only partially joking about it: The preponderance of the evidence at this stage of investigation points to the existence of an unclassified, bipedal animal of unknown nature and origin, and of which we have limited knowledge of morphology, habitat preferences, diet, behavior, mating/reproductive requirements and capacity for communication. All those who are willing to accept this premise and discuss this subject to try and arrive at a greater understanding are welcome. By definition, all those who flatly oppose this premise will have a very limited ability to contribute to the greater understanding of the evidence of this animal. Attempts by those individuals to divert discussion to a debate of this premise will not be tolerated. We steering commitee members just voted this in. Put your money where your mouth is, you can then allow in who you want and throw out who you don't. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/forum-19/announcement-27-attention-all-group-and-independent-bigfoot-researchers/ Edited July 10, 2014 by chelefoot Removed deleted content from quote 1
norseman Posted July 9, 2014 Admin Posted July 9, 2014 Hi All: I just broke the tree. Using Drew's previous 200,000 lbs of force required to snap a 24" tree at the location, I've been messing around with some...well..math.... OK. A 700 lb force could outboard on a branch, then run along the branch at 20 mph (an easy feat for a BF, no?). When that force meets the tree and stops, the resultant force is 6,256 lbs. 6,256 lbs at 45 feet creates a 281,520 ft.lb torque at the base of the tree. Boom. Solved. Wag, if yer still out there, you owe me 20 bux. Ridiculous! Where is your cartoon tree!???? No cartoon tree? Didn't happen! 1
norseman Posted July 9, 2014 Admin Posted July 9, 2014 Better.......but Iam watching you now! Don't be trying to get aaaaall sceentificated on me with out cartoon characters!
Cotter Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 ^I'll remember that. Perhaps I could drive it home with something animated. That would rock... Another thing I'd like to add to my above post. Say, the BF was only able to go 15 mph on the approach. Once the tree starts swaying, and with proper timing, after a couple runs, the momentum of the tree will also contribute to the forces on the ground. The end conclusion then would be that an even smaller, slower force (BF) could topple the tree.
norseman Posted July 9, 2014 Admin Posted July 9, 2014 Being serious here.....agreed cotter. It's not impossible.
1980squatch Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Hi All: I just broke the tree. Using Drew's previous 200,000 lbs of force required to snap a 24" tree at the location, I've been messing around with some...well..math.... OK. A 700 lb force could outboard on a branch, then run along the branch at 20 mph (an easy feat for a BF, no?). When that force meets the tree and stops, the resultant force is 6,256 lbs. 6,256 lbs at 45 feet creates a 281,520 ft.lb torque at the base of the tree. Boom. Solved. Wag, if yer still out there, you owe me 20 bux. That assumes the tree absorbs all that kinetic energy over a 1.5 ft distance, which seems... about right. Plussed... But darn you anyway for forcing me to do all those calculations in English units!
Cotter Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Dude, I know, I was pulling hair out. I should have left em in metric, then converted.... Yeah, you'd have to figger that the deceleration was pretty rapid..... But, I think that it shows it isn't impossible. Hard to believe, absolutely, but not impossible.
WSA Posted July 9, 2014 Posted July 9, 2014 Rockape.....I'm encouraged. Yes, that is something I'd be very interested in joining. I've got some questions about how that works, exactly, but looks like there are answers. Thanks for pointing me to that.
Recommended Posts