Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!dual!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!bill
From: bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Out-of-context Quotation of the Month
Message-ID: <712@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 17:30:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.712
Posted: Fri Sep 13 17:30:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 11:56:05 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 104

Cranks frequently quote others out of context to provide themselves
with additional ammunition.  A case in point:

[Ted Holden]

>          Wann Langston,  writing in  the Feb. 81  issue of Scientific
>          American,   had   this   to   say   about  the  Texas  pterosaurs
>          (Quetzalcoatlus):
>
>               "Aeronautical engineers quickly pointed out, however, that a
>               pterosaur with  the shape  of a pteranodon and a wingspan of
>               15.5 meters might have weighed as much as 136 kilograms.  It
>               would then  have lacked  the muscle  power to maintain level
>               flight by flapping its wings.  Moreover, the strength of the
>               wing bones  would perhaps have been insufficient to bear the
>               stresses the wings would have  had  to  endure.   Of course,
>               Quetzalcoatlus  Northropi  did  not  have  exactly  the same
>               proportions  of  Pteranodon.   Even  so,  an  animal  with a
>               wingspan  of  15.5  meters  would  probably  have been at or
>               beyond the engineering limits for a  flying machine  made of
>               muscles, tendons, and delicate, hollow bones."

But the next paragraph, which was left out of Ted's article, says:

	"Unfortunately the precise length of the wing of *Quetzalcoatlus
	northropi* is still uncertain.  It is known, however, that the
	metacarpal bone of the fourth finger was relatively longer in
	*Quetzalcoatlus* than it was in *Pteranodon* and that some of 
	the other bones of this finger were substantially shorter. 
	These differences suggest an adjusted calculation by which the 
	wingspan of *Quetzalcoatlus* sp. emerges as no less than 5.5
	meters, and that of *Q. northropi* as 11 to 12 meters.  Such
	an animal might have weighed 86 kilograms.  In spite of the
	recent discovery in Argentina of an extinct vulture whose 
	wingspan is estimated to have been more than seven meters,
	*Q. northropi* still would rank as the largest known flying
	creature."

By omitting the second paragraph, the impression is given that
Langston believes *Q. northropi* to be much larger and heaver than
he really does.  It is also implied, falsely, that Langston 
believes *Q. northropi* could not fly.  Now, we do not know whether
this misquotation is original with Ted, or (as is highly likely) 
he got it in this form from another source.  I sincerely hope the
latter is the case, for whatever my opinion of Ted's theories, I do 
not want to think that he would deliberately engage in this dishonest
and reprehensible tactic.

Later in the article (p. 131), Langston goes on to explain how he
believes *Q. northropi* became airborne:

	"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."

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.

In any case, Langston's article shows clearly that the following
assertion Ted made is just not true:

>               Everybody  who  has  ever  studied  pterosaurs  and done any
>          THINKING about them has arrived  at  the  same  conclusion:  that
>          it  would  be  physically  impossible  for  them to fly, but that
>          they obviously HAD to fly in  order to  survive (since  they were
>          built for  flying and  could not have earned a living otherwise),
>          hence an  enigma,  

And here Ted inserts a remark that is typical of the way that cranks
grossly overestimate the importance of their ideas:

>          ...which  I  claim  nothing  other  than Immanuel
>          Velikovsky's theory  of a  lesser FELT  EFFECT of  gravity in the
>          archaic world could possibly  account for.   

Let me stress that the issue here is not whether Langston's conclusions
about *Q. northropi* are correct or not; the issue is the improper use
of one person's work by another.  I hope that Ted will restrict any
reply to this issue.

-- 
Glend.	I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hot.	Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you
	do call for them?    --  Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53

	Bill Jefferys  8-%
	Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712   (USnail)
	{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill	(UUCP)
	bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU.				(Internet)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com