Bigfoot snapped a 24" diameter Oak Trunk

The Shrike said:
Well that's quite different. A tree falls and a bear runs away. What's the big deal?
Click to expand...

Big deal?

The fright from the falling tree caused the bear to self-transform into a bipedal ape? What then causes the ape to change back into a bear - does it need to first take a drink from a nearby creek in order to reverse the self-transformation?
 
Red Baron Farms said:
That's what I was thinking actually. Assuming the guy is not lying, and was only mistaken, that is the explanation.
Click to expand...
Remember that this is Bigfootery.

And you guys forgot another explanation...

A tree falls and a Bigfoot runs away. What's the big deal?
 
William Parcher said:
Big deal?

The fright from the falling tree caused the bear to self-transform into a bipedal ape? What then causes the ape to change back into a bear - does it need to first take a drink from a nearby creek in order to reverse the self-transformation?
Click to expand...
William Parcher said:
Remember that this is Bigfootery.

And you guys forgot another explanation...

A tree falls and a Bigfoot runs away. What's the big deal?
Click to expand...
That post needs to be placed in the other forums. Remember, you came here for rational explanations. Shrike's post was rational. Your post isn't.
 
Last edited:
Hi Folks:

Drew invited me over here to help with the dialogue a bit as I was the 'bigfooter' that originally threw up the force numbers.

Admittedly, I used a basic moment diagram to determine the torque experienced at the base of tree when a 700 lb force, traveling at 20 mph is applied at 45 feet from the anchor point (vertical cantilever).

I like that Ben (I think it was Ben) included the elasticity of the tree, but I'm not certain that would change the torque experienced at the base much (Ben or others, please correct me if I'm wrong) as it changes the vector of the force as the tree bends, and adds the weight of the displaced tree from bending to the force....I was dealing with rough numbers.

I simply wanted to show that a 700 lb weight, traveling at a certain speed, could create the torque needed to topple a 24" diameter trunk tree. Which, if I'm not mistaken is around 225,000 ft.lbs of force (again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

SO, a 700 lb object, traveling at 20 mph creates 6256 lbs of force.

This 6256 lbs of force, applied perpendicular to a beam at 45 feet creates 281,500 ft.lbs of torque at the base. I have a Free Body Diagram showing this, but unfortunately the forum won't let me upload from my comp. I'm sure this portion of the calculation won't be disputed as described.

So, in the end, I say that 700 lbs, traveling at the proper speed can create the torque needed to snap/topple the tree.

OK. Now, taking that into account, imagine this same 700 lbs now repeatedly applying the same force to the same location, but using the tree 'swing' to it's advantage. We already know that after 1 impact (thanks to Ben) the tree moves 50 cm. How far would it move if a second impact was timed properly? A third? A fourth? Once you get a tree moving, you can really get it swinging with properly timed force application.

So anyway, there's the numbers, I look forward to the discussion regarding the physics of it (forgive me, I'm about 15 years out of practice in the physics arena).

As far as a BF doing this? Well, not my purpose here or concern. I wanted to show that it isn't far fetched to have a 700 lb weight create enough torque to do what was described.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing the technical responses.
 
Last edited:
Red Baron Farms said:
I realise (hope) your post was sarcastic. I get that. But it is still not rational and has no business in the science forum. There is a bigfoot thread here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38800

The Shrike's post was rational. Yours not, even though I get it that was on purpose.;)
Click to expand...

Sure my post was sarcastic but I think we know that science cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. All possible explanations stay on the table even if some have greater priority than others.

I think you went overboard in saying my post doesn't belong here. One could even propose that all Bigfoot threads should be in Science forum because Bigfoot (animal) is a science topic.
 
Cotter said:
........So, in the end, I say that 700 lbs, traveling at the proper speed can create the torque needed to snap/topple the tree...........
Click to expand...

Even if it were to produce the force needed to snap the tree, the tree wouldn't break 40 feet below the point of impact, in just about the strongest part of the tree. That's just ridiculous.
 
Cotter said:
As far as a BF doing this? Well, not my purpose here or concern. I wanted to show that it isn't far fetched to have a 700 lb weight create enough torque to do what was described.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing the technical responses.
Click to expand...
Would some of the torque or force be required to be directed towards prevention of being catapulted out of the swinging tree before the trunk break even happens?

IOW, does the entity need to begin counteracting its own inputs in order to stay in the tree?
 
Cotter said:
Hi Folks:

Drew invited me over here to help with the dialogue a bit as I was the 'bigfooter' that originally threw up the force numbers.

Admittedly, I used a basic moment diagram to determine the torque experienced at the base of tree when a 700 lb force, traveling at 20 mph is applied at 45 feet from the anchor point (vertical cantilever).

I like that Ben (I think it was Ben) included the elasticity of the tree, but I'm not certain that would change the torque experienced at the base much (Ben or others, please correct me if I'm wrong) as it changes the vector of the force as the tree bends, and adds the weight of the displaced tree from bending to the force....I was dealing with rough numbers.

I simply wanted to show that a 700 lb weight, traveling at a certain speed, could create the torque needed to topple a 24" diameter trunk tree. Which, if I'm not mistaken is around 225,000 ft.lbs of force (again, someone please correct me if I'm wrong).

SO, a 700 lb object, traveling at 20 mph creates 6256 lbs of force.

This 6256 lbs of force, applied perpendicular to a beam at 45 feet creates 281,500 ft.lbs of torque at the base. I have a Free Body Diagram showing this, but unfortunately the forum won't let me upload from my comp. I'm sure this portion of the calculation won't be disputed as described.

So, in the end, I say that 700 lbs, traveling at the proper speed can create the torque needed to snap/topple the tree.

OK. Now, taking that into account, imagine this same 700 lbs now repeatedly applying the same force to the same location, but using the tree 'swing' to it's advantage. We already know that after 1 impact (thanks to Ben) the tree moves 50 cm. How far would it move if a second impact was timed properly? A third? A fourth? Once you get a tree moving, you can really get it swinging with properly timed force application.

So anyway, there's the numbers, I look forward to the discussion regarding the physics of it (forgive me, I'm about 15 years out of practice in the physics arena).

As far as a BF doing this? Well, not my purpose here or concern. I wanted to show that it isn't far fetched to have a 700 lb weight create enough torque to do what was described.

Thank you and I look forward to hearing the technical responses.
Click to expand...

Uh, no.

The bigfoot was running along a branch, which is attached to the trunk, meaning there was no force applied to the trunk because it was negated by the force applied to the branch, which was attached to the trunk.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It's the same as trying to sail a boat with a fan in the boat. The boat won't move because the fan is on the boat, pushing the other way.
 
GT/CS said:
Uh, no.

The bigfoot was running along a branch, which is attached to the trunk, meaning there was no force applied to the trunk because it was negated by the force applied to the branch, which was attached to the trunk.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

It's the same as trying to sail a boat with a fan in the boat. The boat won't move because the fan is on the boat, pushing the other way.
Click to expand...

This is the kind of answer I was thinking I would find here at JREF.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
That's what I was thinking actually. Assuming the guy is not lying, and was only mistaken, that is the explanation.
Click to expand...
A bit of backstory, RBF: We have a long history with the guy claiming the bigfoot-broken tree trunk in Oklahoma and lying is the only rational explanation for his claims. WP is correct that lying should be our default explanation, and he's been instrumental in pointing this out to us here at the JREF.

This broken tree thing, however, sounded like out-of-character lying even for the source. It was just so comically stupid a claim that it didn't make sense to me that the guy would open himself up to ridicule in that way when he's taken pains for a couple of years now to sell this story under the guise of 'footer-plausibility. So I wondered if there was more to the story.

Drew's explanation provided that something more (or indeed, less) for me: the guy didn't claim to have seen bigfoot break the tree, he apparently watched a tree fall whilst a bigfoot (aka "wood ape") fled the scene. Aha, now the claim is back within the realm of possibility that our "witness" saw something that he's claiming was a bigfoot. but it could have been a bear, hog, deer, human, etc.

That is more in his m.o.: claim stuff to be bigfoot that could be other things so as not to sound like fantastical lies. That's how these particular bigfooters try to stand apart from the other "habituation" wackos who claim things like sitting down to tea with their local bigfoot friends. Those are lies for which there is no other explanation.

There's a huge difference between completely fabricating a story and bending the rules of an actual event to suggest it as a bigfoot story. I think our witness engages in the latter, primarily. For example, willingness to take a polygraph still holds a lot of sway with the simple-minded folk that our lying bigfooter is trying to dupe. I'd be a lot more willing to take one if I actually saw a tree fall down and something run away from it than I would if I had invented that story whole cloth.
 
Last edited:
Drew, did bipto say he saw Bigfoot up in the tree before the tree fell? Can his exact words be pasted into this thread?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom