Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site imsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!cvl!elsie!imsvax!ted
From: ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: astronomers, flesh and blood gliders, out-of-context quotes
Message-ID: <395@imsvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 14:49:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: imsvax.395
Posted: Sat Sep 14 14:49:52 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 02:37:29 EDT
Organization: IMS Inc, Rockville MD
Lines: 92




               There are  several kinds  of animals on our planet which can
          glide, but are not  generally capable  of flying.   These include
          the flying  squirrel, the  flying fish,  and one  or two kinds of
          lizards.  In  each  of  these,  gliding  is  basically  an escape
          mechanism which  they use  occasionally to  get out of harms way,
          and which they use to cover small distances, typically 50  or 100
          feet.   The  flying  fish  and  lizards  must  jump vigorously to
          achieve their shorts glides,  while the  squirrel takes  off from
          trees.  None  of these creatures RELIES on gliding as its primary
          mode of transportation and, in  that  sense,  there  are  no true
          gliders amongst  the animals  of our planet.  There are none now,
          there have never been any, and there never shall be any.

               The reasons  for  this  are  so  many,  so  obvious,  and so
          compelling, that  only someone  like Bill  Jefferys, whose entire
          life has been spent absorbing dogma and sealing his mind off from
          logic, would  have any  problem with  them.  A  (partial) list of
          such reasons would include the following:

               1.   Such  a  creature  (as   a  quetzalcoatlus  northropi),
                    assuming  it  could  only  glide, would only be able to
                    take off from high ground.  Did any of you readers ever
                    see  a  sailplane  or  a  hang glider take off from low
                    ground?  Real thermal currents  only  start  from about
                    100 feet up or so, even over asphalt.  It would have to
                    have been  a carrion  feeder (unless  Jefferys has some
                    explanation  as  to  how  a  glider  might  could  have
                    caught some  super-slow prehistoric  duck while staying
                    airborne).  It  would have  had to  land on low ground,
                    eat carrion (thereby gaining several pounds),  and then
                    (since there  would have  been NO WAY IN HELL for it to
                    have gotten back  in  the  air  from  where  it stood),
                    DRAGGED  its  hiney  AND  ITS  45 FOOT WINGS slowly and
                    clumsily back up to  the  top  of  the  mountain again,
                    hoping that  all of the predators along the way, out of
                    the goodness of their hearts, would refrain from eating
                    it.

               2.   Any  creature  which  could  only  glide  would have no
                    home.  Its life would be a  continual migration  in the
                    direction of  the prevailing  winds.  How then would it
                    care for its young, back at the nest?

               3.   How many days have any of you readers  seen it  go with
                    no wind?   How many  days can  any of  you live without
                    food?

               But a crank like Bill Jefferys has no use for  logic such as
          this.  He quotes Wan Langston's obviously misguided statement:


        "It appears, then, that *Quetzalcoatlus* may have lived on fairly
        flat, low-lying ground.  There, as is the habit of a vulture,
        it may well have had to wait each morning until the sun
        warmed the ground and strong thermal updrafts developed.
        In the larger pterosaurs the musculature that animated the
        wing was not impressively massive, and the hind limbs were long
        but weak.  All things considered, it seems unlikely that
        *Quetzalcoatlus* could have run on its hind legs and flapped
        its wings energetically.  Still, if the animal could stand up
        on its hind legs and catch the appropriate breeze, a single
        flap of the wings and a kick with the legs may have been all
        it needed for takeoff."

And then goes on to say:

>Langston is not describing the same behemoth which flies by
>expending large amounts of power flapping its wings that Ted does.
>For a gliding animal such as Langston postulates, large amounts of
>wing power are not required, as the necessary lift comes from thermals.
>True, getting airborne is not easy, but Langston proposes a plausible
>mechanism, well known from living (though smaller) creatures.  Once 
>airborne there is no reason why *Quetzalcoatlus* could not have 
>remained aloft all day, as unpowered sailplanes do today.


     Now, we've  all seen vultures take off from low ground by simply spreading
their wings and ascending  into the  rising heat  waves coming  off the ground,
haven't we?   I mean, these guys seem to be describing the Texas pterosaur as a
prehistoric  G. Gordon  Liddy,  with  superman  cape  attached,  only  the real
G. Gordon Liddy  at least  had the sense (if you could call it that) to try his
stunt from the roof of his uncles barn.   The technique  didn't work  for Liddy
(who spent  several months  in the  hospital) any better than it would have for
Quetzalcoatlus Northropi, which outweighed Liddy by about 100 lbs.

     The funniest part of Jefferys' article  is  his  asking  me  to  clear any
future quotes  from University  of Texas  professors with  HIM.  I mean, I gave
Langston the benefit of the doubt, Bill.  I quoted the INTELLIGENT part  of his
article.