Bigfoot - serious, not follies

[LTC8K6]

http://www.beckjord.com/bigfoot/bfufo.html

Oh! Now I get it!

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Re: Summary to date

You guys do no research.
You jump to conclusions about what is claimed, or not.
You wallow in trivial discourse.
You have not read any of the relevant books.
You do not know the major or minor authors.
You do not contribute, except to try (badly) to tear down.
Some of you babble.
One person had a good idea -- brava... re sharp photos of a fuzzy
life form.
One person promotes out of date ideas..LAL (Lu-Woo)
None of you seem to know why you are here.

I'm not very impressed.

EB

You seem amazed that noone believes that Bigfoot is a shapeshifting alien. You say you have no evidence to prove this besides blurry photos of treestumps and clouds.

Please, very simply, tell us, why should we believe this? "Because I said so" does not qualify as a reason.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

And check this out:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/vile.html

Also: in air, to disable hijackers, as a LAST resort, open emergency door or emergency window a crack, if you can, try to be tied in with seat belt or other straps, and DECOMPRESS THE PLANE. Pilot will have to dive plane to get to lower altitude. In some cases, this may crash the plane, but this is better than dying by smashing into the Empire State Building and killing thousands.

1) It is impossible to open an emergency window or exit "a crack". Once the locking safeguards are removed, they are designed to open fully and immediately. Given the way these are constructed, it may not even be possible to open them while in flight - internal cabin pressure might make pulling the window or door inward impossible. Even if it were possible - depending on the height of the plane - the explosive decompression that follows may even result in loss of flight control. If the hijacker's intention is not to crash the plane, but to hold hostages and make demands, then these actions would put people on the ground in great danger unnecessarily.

2) The pilot (assuming he or she keeps control) will indeed have to dive the plane. Which is exactly what a hijacker would want if his intention was to crash the plane into a building anyway.

3) Unlike the Twin Trade Towers and other recent construction, a completely different support structure was used in the Empire State Building. The Trade Towers were designed to flex, and it was the external structure of the building that maintained it's integrity. The Empire State Building is designed to tolerate flexing, and the support structure is embedded inside the building, not on the outside. This results in a much more stable and resistant structure to outside impact.

In point of fact, on July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber hit the 78th floor of the Empire State Building at approximately 200 - 250 miles per hour. The plane penetrated the building, and the damage - while signficant - did not render the structure unstable or in danger of collapse.

Here is a story about the crash; and here is a rather famous picture of the result.

Bear in mind that while modern jets are larger than B-25's and fly faster (and weigh more), they are composed of materials that are much more fragile than those used in the B-25. The B-25 bomber was built of more durable material (little or no plastic, fiberglass and no composite materials!) - the superstructure and wings were designed to take a great deal of punishment in a combat zone and remain intact.

At first, I considered Mr. Beckjord as either an amusing troll or a mildly deluded individual. Based on the kinds of dangerous advice he's apparently giving on things that he's obviously unqualified to deal with, I am no longer amused and consider him dangerously deluded.

 

[Cleon]

jmercer, keep in mind you're trying to debunk the words of a man who, by all appearances, doesn't seem to be on very good speaking terms with reality.

 

[erikbeckjord]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

1) It is impossible to open an emergency window or exit "a crack". Once the locking safeguards are removed, they are designed to open fully and immediately. Given the way these are constructed, it may not even be possible to open them while in flight - internal cabin pressure might make pulling the window or door inward impossible. Even if it were possible - depending on the height of the plane - the explosive decompression that follows may even result in loss of flight control. If the hijacker's intention is not to crash the plane, but to hold hostages and make demands, then these actions would put people on the ground in great danger unnecessarily.

2) The pilot (assuming he or she keeps control) will indeed have to dive the plane. Which is exactly what a hijacker would want if his intention was to crash the plane into a building anyway.

3) Unlike the Twin Trade Towers and other recent construction, a completely different support structure was used in the Empire State Building. The Trade Towers were designed to flex, and it was the external structure of the building that maintained it's integrity. The Empire State Building is designed to tolerate flexing, and the support structure is embedded inside the building, not on the outside. This results in a much more stable and resistant structure to outside impact.

In point of fact, on July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber hit the 78th floor of the Empire State Building at approximately 200 - 250 miles per hour. The plane penetrated the building, and the damage - while signficant - did not render the structure unstable or in danger of collapse.

Here is a story about the crash; and here is a rather famous picture of the result.

Bear in mind that while modern jets are larger than B-25's and fly faster (and weigh more), they are composed of materials that are much more fragile than those used in the B-25. The B-25 bomber was built of more durable material (little or no plastic, fiberglass and no composite materials!) - the superstructure and wings were designed to take a great deal of punishment in a combat zone and remain intact.

At first, I considered Mr. Beckjord as either an amusing troll or a mildly deluded individual. Based on the kinds of dangerous advice he's apparently giving on things that he's obviously unqualified to deal with, I am no longer amused and consider him dangerously deluded.

My point is to find some way, making a hole with an emergency ax, or knife or breaker bar or something, to cause decompression.
Making the plane dive does not mean making it crash. BONK! In an extreme case, hmmm.... partially opening a removeable window, excape window, not a door, may help to decompress.. it is worth a try. If I recall, you loosen teh latch and pull it in, then, officially, you are supposed to turn it sideways and toss it out. By pulling a few inches in, you might decompress the plane and make thand make the hijackers go unconsious. The pilots have masks and can breathe., If the crash were to the Empire State Building, the losses may be 100s and not 1000s, BUT SO WHAT? You ***** would sit in your seats and do nothing and die. At least do what the flt 93 people did and die honorably. You guys are negative,negative, in a word, skeptix. Boring ones at that.

NATTERING NANNYGOATS OF NEGATIVITY

i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC.

 

[Psiload]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

My point is to find some way, making a hole with an emergency ax, or knife or breaker bar or something, to cause decompression.
Making the plane dive does not mean making it crash. BONK! In an extreme case, hmmm.... partially opening a removeable window, excape window, not a door, may help to decompress.. it is worth a try. If I recall, you loosen teh latch and pull it in, then, officially, you are supposed to turn it sideways and toss it out. By pulling a few inches in, you might decompress the plane and make thand make the hijackers go unconsious. The pilots have masks and can breathe., If the crash were to the Empire State Building, the losses may be 100s and not 1000s, BUT SO WHAT? You ***** would sit in your seats and do nothing and die. At least do what the flt 93 people did and die honorably. You guys are negative,negative, in a word, skeptix. Boring ones at that.

NATTERING NANNYGOATS OF NEGATIVITY

i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC.

Emergency exits on commercial airplanes are specifically designed to not function while a plane is at altitude.

The reason for this is very simple. People like yourself.

Let's see... they won't let me on a plane these days with tweezers or a set of nail clippers, yet I'm supposed to grab my trusty ax and my pry bar to decompress the plane? Or I can use a knife? You mean like the butter knife they give me with my in-flight meal? Yeah... I'll breach the pressure hull of a 727 with a butter knife, that should do the trick in no time.

I guess I'll just have to take you on flights with me from now on... put that thick skull of yours to good use.

 

[LTC8K6]

The oxygen masks will deploy in the event of a decompression. Anyone who is awake and alert will not go unconscious. There will be no need to "crash dive" the plane dangerously unless there is a malfunction with the oxygen. A smooth descent will be made to a safe altitude.

Mythbusters has shown pretty conclusively that explosive decompression is largely a myth, anyway. They tried shooting a hole in a window, and blowing out a whole window.

Decompression resulted, but nothing spectacular and nothing big would have been sucked out. Both holes in the fuselage were too small and decompression was too slow to suck anything but paper out.

To get any real effect on a passenger, a large chunk of the fuselage had to be blown out, making a really big hole, like that flight where a big chunk of roof came off of the plane.

If you crack open the door, you won't get any explosive decompression, period. You'll just hear a lot of noise until the pressure equalizes.

 

[jmercer]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

My point is to find some way, making a hole with an emergency ax, or knife or breaker bar or something, to cause decompression.
Making the plane dive does not mean making it crash. BONK! In an extreme case, hmmm.... partially opening a removeable window, excape window, not a door, may help to decompress.. it is worth a try. If I recall, you loosen teh latch and pull it in, then, officially, you are supposed to turn it sideways and toss it out. By pulling a few inches in, you might decompress the plane and make thand make the hijackers go unconsious. The pilots have masks and can breathe., If the crash were to the Empire State Building, the losses may be 100s and not 1000s, BUT SO WHAT? You ***** would sit in your seats and do nothing and die. At least do what the flt 93 people did and die honorably. You guys are negative,negative, in a word, skeptix. Boring ones at that.

Tell you what. You try to get an ax, knife or breaker bar onto a commercial airliner and tell me what happens.

I withdraw any concerns about explosive decompression based on LTC86's post - thanks LT.

Regarding what I would do, Mr. Beckjord - you have not the slightest idea of what I would do (or am capable of doing) in such a situation. Sitting in my seat like a sheep isn't among my choices, however.

NATTERING NANNYGOATS OF NEGATIVITY

Got a thing for hairy animals, do you? My goodness... Bigfoot had better sleep with one eye open!

i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC. [/B]

You should be a fine critic, then.

 

[jmercer]

The oxygen masks will deploy in the event of a decompression. Anyone who is awake and alert will not go unconscious. There will be no need to "crash dive" the plane dangerously unless there is a malfunction with the oxygen. A smooth descent will be made to a safe altitude.

Mythbusters has shown pretty conclusively that explosive decompression is largely a myth, anyway. They tried shooting a hole in a window, and blowing out a whole window.

Decompression resulted, but nothing spectacular and nothing big would have been sucked out. Both holes in the fuselage were too small and decompression was too slow to suck anything but paper out.

To get any real effect on a passenger, a large chunk of the fuselage had to be blown out, making a really big hole, like that flight where a big chunk of roof came off of the plane.

If you crack open the door, you won't get any explosive decompression, period. You'll just hear a lot of noise until the pressure equalizes.

Excellent post. The whole idea of opening up one of these in-flight seemed bizarre to me, so I was just going based on logic and memory of how I'd seen these things put together. Nice catch on the Mythbusters show - didn't know they'd done that...

 

[Beady]

If you crack open the door, you won't get any explosive decompression, period. You'll just hear a lot of noise until the pressure equalizes.

On Soyuz 12(?) the decompress valve was accidentally opened during reentry. Decompression wasn't exactly instantaneous, but it still only took about 30 seconds. When the ground crew found the capsule there was virtually no physical indication of what happened; they even thought, at first, that the crew were asleep.

That occurred at roughly 100 miles altitude. I can't imagine that decompression at 1/10th that altitude would be worse.

 

[jmercer]

On Soyuz 12(?)

Soyuz 11. Not that it matters... a tragedy.

 

[misawafan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

i AM OFFERING ATTEMPTS AT SOLUTIONS... YOU JUST SIT THERE AND BLEAT "NAY,NAY,NAY" NAAAAAAAAYYYY -- IT TAKES NO TALENT TO BE A CRITIC. [/B]

I'll join in - just have a box with free guns/weapons for every passenger. See, I'm no bleater.

I'll give you this, your posts have certainly been eye-opening...

 

[LAL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

If you already know stills are not enough, and never are, and you also don't care if we accept your evidence, why, exactly, have you come here?

Just curious.

Also, didn't someone admit that he faked that "famous" bigfoot video?

No. You may be thinking of Ray Wallace. He didn't fake anything important.

http://www.bigfootresearch.org/Bigfoot_ray wallace.htm

 

[LAL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Erik

Reply:we have no evidence acceptable to science. OK? But we have a 23 ft 16mm film, FWIW. Also blood and hair and a claim of DNA.

Let me get this straight. You say there is blood and a claim of DNA but they are not flesh and blood beings.
Okaaaaaaaaaaaay.

 

[LAL]

I am here to search for the very few, not you, intelligent
people.

Also to deflate this pompous LAL person, who really thinks she is

somebody

I'm pompous? Oh, my sides.
I have no idea who would send you favorable PM's, but it certainly wasn't me. Do I have your permission to post some of your comments to me? Other posters might be interested to see what kind of PM's you send.

 

[LAL]

Well bless my hole Erik, or should I say Cedrip, when did they let you out?

You wouldn't be pestering the folks here at the JREF Forum with your wild stories of riding in UFOs, seeing bigfoot in a bag of chips, taking ghost photos, or other such nonsense would you?

RayG

Same RayG? Whew. I think I'll take a break.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Reply to absurd post

3) Unlike the Twin Trade Towers and other recent construction, a completely different support structure was used in the Empire State Building. The Trade Towers were designed to flex, and it was the external structure of the building that maintained it's integrity. The Empire State Building is designed to tolerate flexing, and the support structure is embedded inside the building, not on the outside. This results in a much more stable and resistant structure to outside impact.

In point of fact, on July 28, 1945 a B-25 bomber hit the 78th floor of the Empire State Building at approximately 200 - 250 miles per hour. The plane penetrated the building, and the damage - while signficant - did not render the structure unstable or in danger of collapse.

A B-25 wouldn't have done much damage to the WTC either. The big difference between the B-25 and a jetliner (besides size and speed) is the amount and type of fuel used.
B-25: A few hundred gallons of gasoline.
767: Thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

It was the burning jet fuel that weakened the towers and caused the collapse. I doubt the Empire State Building would have fared much better.

 

[Morris Cod]

Errr...sorry,I seem to have stumbled upon the Muppet Show forum.

My mistake.

By the way which muppet was Eric? Was he the drummer? Or one of the old heckling guys from the balcony?

 

[LAL]

reply: got ten pms of support, and one critical. (LAL)

Would you like me to post them? I replied to most of your ranting, demanding, insulting, veiled obscenity- filled posts. You sent me 12 PM's, I replied to 10.

Do you tell the truth about anything?

 

[RayG]

Same RayG? Whew. I think I'll take a break.

Yup, dat be me. I couldn't resist the urge to roast Cedrip's nuts over an open fire.

I'm still waiting for his detailed explanation of shape-shifting. It should at least prove entertaining, cause I don't expect anything intelligent.

Take care LAL yer doing fine.

RayG