Higher Education Is Overrated

[Catrike Ryder]

https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

[Catrike Ryder]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

Here's a little talk about social structuring:
https://intellectualtakeout.org/2024/08/shareable-snack-dark-origins-of-us-public-education/

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.

In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.

While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

A widespread familiarity with firearms is the basis of the
Framers' 2d Amendment. Not hunting. Not crime.

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)
--
Cheers,
John B.

Not of much use against an M14.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You’d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.

no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.

Ie to use such a bow you’d need to devote significant effort and time.

Roger Merriman

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn’t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!

Roger Merriman

[cyclintom]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom
When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

Hint: Archers don't wear short sleeve shirts or tunics.

Long bow archers wore leather arm guards or bracers:
<https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=traditional+archery+arm+guard>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracer>
Notice the old paintings and drawing of long bowmen with arm guards,
leather jackets, or armor:
<https://www.google.com/search?q=longbowmen&udm=2>
but no bare forearms.

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

Hint: Archers don't wear short sleeve shirts or tunics.
<https://www.google.com/search?udm=2&q=traditional+archery+arm+guard>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracer>
Notice the old paintings and drawing of long bowmen with arm guards,
<https://www.google.com/search?q=longbowmen&udm=2>
but no bare forearms.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Tell us how you hunted with a long bow your whole life.

[John B.]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly the string
will brush across your left wrist and with a heavy pull bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm guards) aboard.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless
you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a
double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly the string
will brush across your left wrist and with a heavy pull bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm guards) aboard.

Even the Marvel films get this right, “Hawkeye” has a bracer.

Roger Merriman

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless
you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a
double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly the string
will brush across your left wrist and with a heavy pull bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm guards) aboard.

Even the Marvel films get this right, ?Hawkeye? has a bracer.
Roger Merriman

And he is using a double recurve bow.

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly the string
will brush across your left wrist and with a heavy pull bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm guards) aboard.
--
Cheers,
John B.

More proof that you know nothing about long bows.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom
More proof that you know nothing about long bows.

The only "proof", that you know anything about, comes in liquid form.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_proof>

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow, which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly the string
will brush across your left wrist and with a heavy pull bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm guards) aboard.
--
Cheers,
John B.

More proof that you know nothing about long bows.

So you've been working since August 27 to think up that witty remark? ;-)

[AMuzi]

Post by Frank Krygowski

Post by cyclintom

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:17:56 GMT, cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:42:55 +0700, John B.

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-
highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to
mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as  any
advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of
the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and
much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26
August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was
somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from
20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses
on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who
were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later
6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them
again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600
- 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was
probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage
archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years
of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery
supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English
Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it
originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in
weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took
those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them.
Blimey!  Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match
the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even
worse,  bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10
- 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience
and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than
modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary
Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such
bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant
effort and time.
Roger Merriman

I did target shooting with a long bow and I do not
think that the pull is
very difficult. That might have been the case because
people were MUCH
smaller and had less strength then.So you have to
allow for that.

A modern bow is a very different beast to a proper long
bow which are 6ft
and above and a draw weight 3 times that of modern bow,
which doesn?t need
that much power as most it will need to stop is deer!
Roger Merriman

When you release a long bow the string bushes across
your wrist. Unless you hold it exactly right it tears
the skin off. When you're shooting a double recurve, the
bow itself stopps that motion into your wrist.

I think you should stop playing with bows and arrows as
you obviously
don't know anything about them. Yes when held correctly
the string
will brush across your  left wrist and with a heavy pull
bow can
abrade the skin... which is why when they recovered the
Mary Rose
(sunk in 1545) they found some 4,000 "bracers" (arm
guards) aboard.
--
Cheers,
John B.

More proof that you know nothing about long bows.

So you've been working since August 27 to think up that
witty remark? ;-)

I think most of us see this as having run its course.

No matter the rich historical record, actual period bows and
arrows from contemporary shipwrecks, voluminous modern
ballistic data, there's always another non sequitur or red
herring to toss in.

[John B.]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr

[John B.]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You’d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you’d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

If I remember over 100 lbs draw weight. I also seem to remember that
body's were found with evidence of unusual stress having been applied
to the arm and back, said to have been archers.

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 09:12:49 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

OMG, training 10 year olds to be proficient in weapons designed to
kill people. What's worse, I'll bet that they took those killer
weapons home where they could be shot with them. Blimey! Horrors!

I would that the "bows" were semi custom to match the child's strength
so undoubtedly they took them home... And even worse, bows are rapid
fire devices - 12 arrows a minute. One site says 10 - 15 arrows per
minute and a 30 "round magazine" :-)

You?d need quite extensive training and experience and strength to draw a
long bow, which is significantly heavier draw than modern or even late
medieval bows.
no original low bows exist oldest are from the Mary Rose which is 100 years
after the Long Bows dominance and the draw of such bows is 3 times of
modern bows or hunting bows of the time.
Ie to use such a bow you?d need to devote significant effort and time.
Roger Merriman

If I remember over 100 lbs draw weight. I also seem to remember that
body's were found with evidence of unusual stress having been applied
to the arm and back, said to have been archers.
--
Cheers,
John B.

The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

[AMuzi]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

[cyclintom]

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

What contemporary records?

[AMuzi]

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

These for example:

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/

You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

[cyclintom]

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom
Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they

measured a lb in the 1500's

Societies have had standards for weight and methods of measuring weight
for as long as there's been civilization. I can't believe that there was
much difficulty measuring the draw weight of a bow even in the 1200s.

Heck, _you_ can probably come up with a practical way of doing it.

[AMuzi]

Post by cyclintom

 Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question
of how they

measured a lb in the 1500's
Societies have had standards for weight and methods of
measuring weight for as long as there's been civilization. I
can't believe that there was much difficulty measuring the
draw weight of a bow even in the 1200s.
Heck, _you_ can probably come up with a practical way of
doing it.

If the value is off by even, say 5% (which is a lot), the
argument does not change.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

 Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question
of how they

measured a lb in the 1500's
Societies have had standards for weight and methods of
measuring weight for as long as there's been civilization. I
can't believe that there was much difficulty measuring the
draw weight of a bow even in the 1200s.
Heck, _you_ can probably come up with a practical way of
doing it.

If the value is off by even, say 5% (which is a lot), the
argument does not change.

English weight standards dated back to the early 1200's

[John B.]

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

Originally the pound sterling was equivalent to the value a Tower
pound of silver(worth about £79 or about $158 US[2] today). In 1528,
the standard was changed to the Troy pound (worth about £84 or $168
today).

So by the mid 1500's the Troy pound was in common use.

Well, you have the 172 longbows recovered from the Mary Rose.
https://www.archers-review.com/magazine-articles/june-2010-longbows-of-the-mary-rose
is an article regarding these bows written by an experienced archer,
http://theinfinitecurve.com/archery/longbows-of-the-mary-rose/
"The warbows found on board were extremely heavy – up to 185lb in draw
weight. Famously, the scientists managed to identify several likely
archers among the hundred plus skeletons found on the wreck, based on
their shoulder blades"

Another point you might consider is that the arrows found on the Mary
Rose were 30 inches long so logically the archers were pulling further
then the average modern shooter.

Remember, these were professional archers who started practicing with
a bow at about 7 years of age.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't
imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your
middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way?
Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might
have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any
POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH
smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible.
I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no
idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a
long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why
they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing
skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about
130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

Really doing yourself no favours, or to put it another way stop digging
man!

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at
the time, with greater range and faster rate of fire than
crossbows. Can't argue with victory; in this example many
victories. The actual bow dimensions and material are known,
and well recorded at the time, so whether or not you could
perform as well, they actually did it.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at
the time, with greater range and faster rate of fire than
crossbows. Can't argue with victory; in this example many
victories. The actual bow dimensions and material are known,
and well recorded at the time, so whether or not you could
perform as well, they actually did it.

Well disregarding that a "long bow" has a substantially higher "rate
of fire", about 12 "rounds" per minute but Edward III decreed in 1363
that
" Whereas the people of our realm, rich and poor alike, were
accustomed formerly in their games to practise archery – whence by
God’s help, it is well known that high honour and profit came to our
realm, and no small advantage to ourselves in our warlike
enterprises…that every man in the same country, if he be able-bodied,
shall, upon holidays, make use, in his games, of bows and arrows…and
so learn and practise archery."

So the English had the advantage of archers who had trained from an
early age.

[Rolf Mantel]

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I
can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked
over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100
lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other
wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most
people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any
POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were
MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been
impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw
a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is
why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing
skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about
130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb
in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at the time,
with greater range and faster rate of fire than crossbows.

My understanding was that crossbows had higher range but longbows had
faster rate of fire; the mixed battle results depended on how
sucessfully crossbow-men stayed out of range of the longbows.

[g***@invalid.junk]

Post by Rolf Mantel

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I
can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked
over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100
lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other
wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most
people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any
POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were
MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been
impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw
a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is
why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing
skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about
130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb
in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at the time,
with greater range and faster rate of fire than crossbows.

My understanding was that crossbows had higher range but longbows had
faster rate of fire; the mixed battle results depended on how
sucessfully crossbow-men stayed out of range of the longbows.

From what I've read cross bows had a much, much, higher draw "weight"
then the long bow, often so high that some sort of lever or winch
device was required to "cock them" as a human wasn't strong enough.
The long bow was used with "bare hands" ,so to speak, so while the
cross bow was much more powerful then the long bow, the long bow had a
much higher "rate of fire" - as much as 12 shots a minute.

--
Cheers,

Schweik

[AMuzi]

Post by Rolf Mantel

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:14:35 GMT, cyclintom

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80
lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to
hold the string hooked over your middle three
fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that
way? Not to mention what it would do to your other
wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons
but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English
longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and
possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to
produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of
longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms
and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right
fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted
arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no
question that people were MUCH smaller in those days
and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I
shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the
power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw
an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the
crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal
damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking
about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how
they measured a lb in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well
at the time, with greater range and faster rate of fire
than crossbows.

My understanding was that crossbows had higher range but
longbows had faster rate of fire; the mixed battle results
depended on how sucessfully  crossbow-men stayed out of
range of the longbows.

My understanding is different:
https://www.heritageoutdoorsllc.com/longbow-vs-crossbow/

Period reports agree with the longer effective range of
longbows at the time.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Rolf Mantel

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:14:35 GMT, cyclintom

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80
lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to
hold the string hooked over your middle three
fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that
way? Not to mention what it would do to your other
wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons
but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English
longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and
possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to
produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of
longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms
and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right
fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted
arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no
question that people were MUCH smaller in those days
and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I
shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the
power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw
an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the
crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal
damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking
about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how
they measured a lb in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well
at the time, with greater range and faster rate of fire
than crossbows.

My understanding was that crossbows had higher range but
longbows had faster rate of fire; the mixed battle results
depended on how sucessfully  crossbow-men stayed out of
range of the longbows.

https://www.heritageoutdoorsllc.com/longbow-vs-crossbow/
Period reports agree with the longer effective range of
longbows at the time.

Well, modern tests have shown that the actual "muzzle velocity" of the
two was similar although the cross bow was usually a bit higher so
range would be similar assuming the same weight projectile. Cross
bows, because of the mechanism needed to draw the bow were much slower
to shoot then the long bow. I've read examples of cross bowmen being
companioned by a "shield holder" for protection while "winding" the
cross bow.
So, as much or more range, vastly slower rate of fire but the
advantage that far less training was required to use effectively.

The long bow was noticeably simpler and cheaper to make, had a vastly
higher rate of fire and sufficient long range for warfare but had the
disadvantage that years of practice was required to produce a
competent bow man. The English had laws requiring the training of
children to be bowmen.

As for "effective range" I suspect that the cross bowman was a bit
more effective but think of how the English,, the greatest user of the
long bow, fought battles... Line men at arms in a block across the
field with your bowmen in equal numbers at each side.When the enemy
starts their charger the bowmen start shooting. At Agincourtt there
were some 1,000 men at arms and 5,000 English bowmen who could shot at
the rate of about 12 a minute. That is blanketing the charging enemy
with 60,000 arrows a minute. And, while personal armor was effective,
armor for horses was basically only the horses face and chest so
60,000 arrows falling out of the sky every minute had a rather large
effect on the charging forces.

[cyclintom]

Post by Rolf Mantel

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I
can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked
over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100
lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other
wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most
people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any
POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were
MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been
impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw
a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is
why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing
skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about
130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb
in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at the time,
with greater range and faster rate of fire than crossbows.

My understanding was that crossbows had higher range but longbows had
faster rate of fire; the mixed battle results depended on how
sucessfully crossbow-men stayed out of range of the longbows.

Crossbows had short and consequetly inaccurate arrows.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom
Crossbows had short and consequetly inaccurate arrows.

True for long distances. Not true over short distances.

Ever see how the arrow shank flexes and wobbles when shot from a
conventional bow? Start here and watch it flex:

With all that flexing, it's a wonder the archer can hit the proverbial
side of a barn. A crossbow bolt is short, stiff and doesn't flex.
Therefore, it's more accurate. What a short bolt doesn't have is
range.
<https://www.crossbownation.com/threads/arrows-short-vs-long.115560/>
If you really want accuracy, you use the longest arrow possible.

[cyclintom]

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by AMuzi

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

The contemporary records were falsified?

What contemporary records?

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/agincourt/
You could even go to see the originals, maybe work in some
cycling with Mr Merriman while you're there.

I don't think you have any historical references to the power to draw a long bow. It is very doifficult to draw an 80 lb long bow. That is why they developed the crossbow. 80 lb long bows are the ones causing skeletal damage to the much smaller people of that time. Talking about 130 lbs of pull simply raises the question of how they measured a lb in the 1500's

And yet well trained yeomen with longbows performed well at
the time, with greater range and faster rate of fire than
crossbows. Can't argue with victory; in this example many
victories. The actual bow dimensions and material are known,
and well recorded at the time, so whether or not you could
perform as well, they actually did it.
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A crossbow was a short range weapon. I will go so far as to say that you don't identify a bowman by their shoulders but by their wrists. 185 lb longbow could not be pulled by a modern archer without fhoulder damage and in the 15's and 1600's a tall man was 5'11" and an average man 5'5".

[John B.]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.

The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/

The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"

[cyclintom]

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.
And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.
The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/
The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"
--
Cheers,
John B.

If there's one thing that really is certain it's the pull of a long bow that's been underwater for 500 years. And now we have John telling us that the archers were 6'9".

Does nothing embarass you? The LENGTH of a long bow is what gave it its power not the thickness of the bow material.

[John B.]

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.
And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.
The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/
The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"
--
Cheers,
John B.

If there's one thing that really is certain it's the pull of a long bow that's been underwater for 500 years. And now we have John telling us that the archers were 6'9".

The people that salvaged the Mary Rose, that had been under water for
400 years, were not fools (as you apparently are) the recovered bows
were never flexed. However some people measured then very, very,
carefully and built bows that matched their dimensions and measured
their strength, and shot them, so the numbers quoted were the
estimates of modern bows made to the exact specifications as the
original.

Post by cyclintom
Does nothing embarass you? The LENGTH of a long bow is what gave it its power not the thickness of the bow material.

What I said was that the recovered bows ranged from 6 feet in length
to 6 ft 9inch

As for length and thickness... Are you a fool? In any spring the
length, thickness and breadth all determine the "power"

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't
imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your
middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way?
Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have
been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.
And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.
The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/
The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"
--
Cheers,
John B.

If there's one thing that really is certain it's the pull of a long bow
that's been underwater for 500 years. And now we have John telling us
that the archers were 6'9".

The people that salvaged the Mary Rose, that had been under water for
400 years, were not fools (as you apparently are) the recovered bows
were never flexed. However some people measured then very, very,
carefully and built bows that matched their dimensions and measured
their strength, and shot them, so the numbers quoted were the
estimates of modern bows made to the exact specifications as the
original.

Indeed seem to remember when I’ve visited the Mary Rose fair bit about the
bows among other recoveries which had expanded history as they had examples
etc.

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom
Does nothing embarass you? The LENGTH of a long bow is what gave it its
power not the thickness of the bow material.

What I said was that the recovered bows ranged from 6 feet in length
to 6 ft 9inch
As for length and thickness... Are you a fool? In any spring the
length, thickness and breadth all determine the "power"

Indeed springs on MTB shocks differ by thickness which results in their
weight Grading.

Roger Merriman

[John B.]

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't
imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your
middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way?
Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have
been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.
And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.
The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/
The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"
--
Cheers,
John B.

If there's one thing that really is certain it's the pull of a long bow
that's been underwater for 500 years. And now we have John telling us
that the archers were 6'9".

The people that salvaged the Mary Rose, that had been under water for
400 years, were not fools (as you apparently are) the recovered bows
were never flexed. However some people measured then very, very,
carefully and built bows that matched their dimensions and measured
their strength, and shot them, so the numbers quoted were the
estimates of modern bows made to the exact specifications as the
original.

Indeed seem to remember when I’ve visited the Mary Rose fair bit about the
bows among other recoveries which had expanded history as they had examples
etc.

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom
Does nothing embarass you? The LENGTH of a long bow is what gave it its
power not the thickness of the bow material.

What I said was that the recovered bows ranged from 6 feet in length
to 6 ft 9inch
As for length and thickness... Are you a fool? In any spring the
length, thickness and breadth all determine the "power"

Indeed springs on MTB shocks differ by thickness which results in their
weight Grading.
Roger Merriman

It's probably old age, or something, but when I see "MTB" I always
think "Motor Torpedo Boat" :-)
https://www.harwichanddovercourt.co.uk/warships/torpedo-boats/

[Roger Merriman]

Post by John B.

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't
imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your
middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way?
Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have
been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted

arouund for any POSSIBLE esception. Well, there's no question that
people were MUCH smaller in those days and pulling 130 lbs would have
been impossible. I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual.
You have no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.
And, as usual, The amazing Tommy gets it wrong yet again.
The Mary Rose was a medieval war ship, built in 1511 sunk in 1545 and
recovered in 1982. Over 100 bows were found aboard.
The draw weight range of the Longbows recovered varied between 100 to
185 pounds at a 30-inch draw (the arrows found on board were 30 inches
long).
https://archeryhistorian.com/the-mary-rose-longbows/
The length varies from 1839mm to 2113mm. 6' to 6'9"
--
Cheers,
John B.

If there's one thing that really is certain it's the pull of a long bow
that's been underwater for 500 years. And now we have John telling us
that the archers were 6'9".

The people that salvaged the Mary Rose, that had been under water for
400 years, were not fools (as you apparently are) the recovered bows
were never flexed. However some people measured then very, very,
carefully and built bows that matched their dimensions and measured
their strength, and shot them, so the numbers quoted were the
estimates of modern bows made to the exact specifications as the
original.

Indeed seem to remember when I’ve visited the Mary Rose fair bit about the
bows among other recoveries which had expanded history as they had examples
etc.

Post by John B.

Post by cyclintom
Does nothing embarass you? The LENGTH of a long bow is what gave it its
power not the thickness of the bow material.

What I said was that the recovered bows ranged from 6 feet in length
to 6 ft 9inch
As for length and thickness... Are you a fool? In any spring the
length, thickness and breadth all determine the "power"

Indeed springs on MTB shocks differ by thickness which results in their
weight Grading.
Roger Merriman

It's probably old age, or something, but when I see "MTB" I always
think "Motor Torpedo Boat" :-)
https://www.harwichanddovercourt.co.uk/warships/torpedo-boats/

The one used with the Dunkirk little boats I believe as command and perhaps
defence was moored up locally until few years ago, fine looking boat!

Roger Merriman

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception.

I don't see how what I wrote proves your point. A little detail
explaining what you're talking about, would be helpful. Incidentally,
nice comma splice between two unrelated comments. What does my
searching for contradictory evidence to disprove your claims have to
do with you be correct? What I do has no effect on the validity of
your claims.

Post by cyclintom
Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those
days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible.

So you say. Got any citations that confirm that 130 lbs pull would be
impossible for short people?

Post by cyclintom
I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have
no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

Got any photos of you and your long bow? Also, what was the maker and
model of your alleged long bow? If you want make amazing claims, a
little corroboration would be helpful.

I have "done nothing"? I have an old (1960's vintage) Ben Pearson
fiberglass bow in excellent condition, except that there's no model
number marking. I suspect it might have been either a very early
model or a prototype. I bought it when I started college to practice
for an archery class. I shoot left handed and the college didn't have
any appropriate bows. The measured length when strung matches the
model 335 but might be an earlier model:
<https://www.archerytalk.com/attachments/ben-pearson-337-04-jpg.4826826/>
<Loading Image...>
It's a little difficult to string, but I managed. I used my Balanzza
luggage scale to measure the 25" pull at 35 lbs. Unfortunately, I
couldn't find my assortment of arrows. I'll keep looking. Photos
when I find them and the other accessories.

While my bow is not even close to a long bow, it does demonstrate that
I know a little about bows and archery. I certainly have no idea what
it's like to shoot a long bow.

[John B.]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception.

I don't see how what I wrote proves your point. A little detail
explaining what you're talking about, would be helpful. Incidentally,
nice comma splice between two unrelated comments. What does my
searching for contradictory evidence to disprove your claims have to
do with you be correct? What I do has no effect on the validity of
your claims.

Post by cyclintom
Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those
days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible.

So you say. Got any citations that confirm that 130 lbs pull would be
impossible for short people?

Post by cyclintom
I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have
no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

Got any photos of you and your long bow? Also, what was the maker and
model of your alleged long bow? If you want make amazing claims, a
little corroboration would be helpful.
I have "done nothing"? I have an old (1960's vintage) Ben Pearson
fiberglass bow in excellent condition, except that there's no model
number marking. I suspect it might have been either a very early
model or a prototype. I bought it when I started college to practice
for an archery class. I shoot left handed and the college didn't have
any appropriate bows. The measured length when strung matches the
<https://www.archerytalk.com/attachments/ben-pearson-337-04-jpg.4826826/>
<https://cornellpubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/6057.jpg>
It's a little difficult to string, but I managed. I used my Balanzza
luggage scale to measure the 25" pull at 35 lbs. Unfortunately, I
couldn't find my assortment of arrows. I'll keep looking. Photos
when I find them and the other accessories.
While my bow is not even close to a long bow, it does demonstrate that
I know a little about bows and archery. I certainly have no idea what
it's like to shoot a long bow.

Tommy is a special case :-)

But there are a number of articles, some in living color, regarding
shooting a 100 Lb. pull bow. Most of them seem to be British folk so I
assume that archery is more commonly practiced there then in the U.S.
Perhaps because English history reaches all the way to the period
when bows and arrows equaled the AR-15 in killing power :-)

Wandering around on the Internet the other day I found a post by our
very own Tom dated 2003. Can you imagine it? Nearly a quarter of a
century of being "a rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering
no useful information." (as described by Jobst Brandt)

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by John B.
But there are a number of articles, some in living color, regarding
shooting a 100 Lb. pull bow. Most of them seem to be British folk so I
assume that archery is more commonly practiced there then in the U.S.
Perhaps because English history reaches all the way to the period
when bows and arrows equaled the AR-15 in killing power :-)

YouTube is crammed full of longbow related videos:
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>

Here's a short video of what it takes to shoot a 155 lb longbow:
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

Here's a longer video featuring the guy in the above video:
"Getting fit the Anti Bro Way, 100% proven, 100% guaranteed, 100%
nerd...75% satire"

(23:14)
I know very little about "fitness" so I found it interesting. However,
it's probably too late for me at age 76.

Post by John B.
Wandering around on the Internet the other day I found a post by our
very own Tom dated 2003. Can you imagine it? Nearly a quarter of a
century of being "a rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering
no useful information." (as described by Jobst Brandt)

More comments about Tom by Jobst Brandt:
<https://narkive.com/oKoXRwKO.9>
Dec 26, 2005
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/Bdcrb3q1i9w/m/Wd8AycPkw1AJ>
"Kunich bore the flame of flaming writers on just about any subject
with no useful contribution to the thread except attempting to
belittle the previous writer."

If you want to dig deeper, here are 437 older posting by Tom from
9/01/1991 to 8/17/1997:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=author%3AThomas+author%3AKunich>

Note that Tom head injury was in late 2009 or early 2010. The
aforementioned comments were well before he could claim that his
rotten attitude was caused by a brain injury.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
bow):
<https://www.youtube.com/@dashrendar5320/search?query=warbow>

"175 lb warbow vs shield"

(0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.

Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

[AMuzi]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

The long bow probably wasn't used against the armored French nights.
The long bow was probably used against their unarmored horses.

This discussion got me interested in the Battle of Agincourt, which
allegedly was won by the English longbow archers. I found a video on
the topic which suggests that wasn't quite true. The battle was won
by the English archers, but not so much by their use of the longbow.
The field of battle had turned to mud after several days of rain. The
French knights got bogged down and stuck in the mud. After targeting
the unarmored horses, the English archers saw the opportunity,
discarded their longbows and massacred the French knights using hand
weapons. As one might suspect, they were quite effective using hand
weapons because of the arm muscle strength required to be an archer.
There are also some interesting comments as to the knights profiting
from battles by ransoming their opponents while the lowly archers had
no such incentive to take prisoners.

"How The Longbow Defeated The French At Agincourt"

44:51

The story is somewhat substantiated by this article:
"9 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-agincourt>
See item #5.

Incidentally, the video also shows some of the paperwork involved in
managing a for profit battle.

[AMuzi]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

The long bow probably wasn't used against the armored French nights.
The long bow was probably used against their unarmored horses.
This discussion got me interested in the Battle of Agincourt, which
allegedly was won by the English longbow archers. I found a video on
the topic which suggests that wasn't quite true. The battle was won
by the English archers, but not so much by their use of the longbow.
The field of battle had turned to mud after several days of rain. The
French knights got bogged down and stuck in the mud. After targeting
the unarmored horses, the English archers saw the opportunity,
discarded their longbows and massacred the French knights using hand
weapons. As one might suspect, they were quite effective using hand
weapons because of the arm muscle strength required to be an archer.
There are also some interesting comments as to the knights profiting
from battles by ransoming their opponents while the lowly archers had
no such incentive to take prisoners.
"How The Longbow Defeated The French At Agincourt"
http://youtu.be/LHdzoPUIJhc 44:51
"9 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-agincourt>
See item #5.
Incidentally, the video also shows some of the paperwork involved in
managing a for profit battle.

Doesn't every schoolboy know about the muddy field of Agincourt?

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

The long bow probably wasn't used against the armored French nights.
The long bow was probably used against their unarmored horses.
This discussion got me interested in the Battle of Agincourt, which
allegedly was won by the English longbow archers. I found a video on
the topic which suggests that wasn't quite true. The battle was won
by the English archers, but not so much by their use of the longbow.
The field of battle had turned to mud after several days of rain. The
French knights got bogged down and stuck in the mud. After targeting
the unarmored horses, the English archers saw the opportunity,
discarded their longbows and massacred the French knights using hand
weapons. As one might suspect, they were quite effective using hand
weapons because of the arm muscle strength required to be an archer.
There are also some interesting comments as to the knights profiting
from battles by ransoming their opponents while the lowly archers had
no such incentive to take prisoners.
"How The Longbow Defeated The French At Agincourt"
http://youtu.be/LHdzoPUIJhc 44:51
"9 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-agincourt>
See item #5.
Incidentally, the video also shows some of the paperwork involved in
managing a for profit battle.

Doesn't every schoolboy know about the muddy field of Agincourt?

Yes, I knew the story about the muddy fields, but I don't recall
reading anything about how the mud affected the actions of both sides
or about the monetary motivations of those involved. I was certainly
not presented with anything even close to the story offered in the
video. Prior to reading, I just assumed that the longbow was some
kind of super-weapon that was directly responsible for defeating the
French. In other words, I didn't get the details or the complete
picture.

[AMuzi]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

The long bow probably wasn't used against the armored French nights.
The long bow was probably used against their unarmored horses.
This discussion got me interested in the Battle of Agincourt, which
allegedly was won by the English longbow archers. I found a video on
the topic which suggests that wasn't quite true. The battle was won
by the English archers, but not so much by their use of the longbow.
The field of battle had turned to mud after several days of rain. The
French knights got bogged down and stuck in the mud. After targeting
the unarmored horses, the English archers saw the opportunity,
discarded their longbows and massacred the French knights using hand
weapons. As one might suspect, they were quite effective using hand
weapons because of the arm muscle strength required to be an archer.
There are also some interesting comments as to the knights profiting
from battles by ransoming their opponents while the lowly archers had
no such incentive to take prisoners.
"How The Longbow Defeated The French At Agincourt"
http://youtu.be/LHdzoPUIJhc 44:51
"9 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-agincourt>
See item #5.
Incidentally, the video also shows some of the paperwork involved in
managing a for profit battle.

Doesn't every schoolboy know about the muddy field of Agincourt?

Yes, I knew the story about the muddy fields, but I don't recall
reading anything about how the mud affected the actions of both sides
or about the monetary motivations of those involved. I was certainly
not presented with anything even close to the story offered in the
video. Prior to reading, I just assumed that the longbow was some
kind of super-weapon that was directly responsible for defeating the
French. In other words, I didn't get the details or the complete
picture.

Makes sense; me too.

The English firing arrows into slow/stuck cavalry is about
as much as I knew until your helpful details.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi
The English firing arrows into slow/stuck cavalry is about
as much as I knew until your helpful details.

Another video. I don't agree with everything discussed, but I believe
"Historian Mike Loades Debunks 'The Agincourt Myth'"

(37:13)

I don't see anything concerning "myth" in that film. The English
armies who invaded France were largely mercenaries. In the 1400's a
man at arm was paid 12 pence a day and an archer 4.
file:///home/anon/Downloads/Chapman.pdf
AS I understand it various "Lords" were contracted by the King to
supply various numbers of men for some for of for see
https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/agincourt-600/the-english-army-in-1415/english-army-table/\
for examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/comments/1c70g4a/who_are_these_archers_in_full_plate_depicted_at/

Mike Loades has also written several books on middle ages bows and
<https://www.amazon.com/Longbow-Weapon-Mike-Loades-ebook/dp/B0BLLSM5XP>
<https://www.amazon.com/War-Bows-crossbow-composite-Japanese-ebook/dp/B07JNB7W95/>

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by John B.

Post by AMuzi
The English firing arrows into slow/stuck cavalry is about
as much as I knew until your helpful details.

Another video. I don't agree with everything discussed, but I believe
"Historian Mike Loades Debunks 'The Agincourt Myth'"
http://youtu.be/v0Xwx12ekSU (37:13)

I don't see anything concerning "myth" in that film. The English
armies who invaded France were largely mercenaries. In the 1400's a
man at arm was paid 12 pence a day and an archer 4.

I did a little Goggling and found numerous "myths" about Agincourt.
For example:
"Five Myths about the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.medievalists.net/2015/10/five-myths-about-the-battle-of-agincourt/>
The problem seems to be that in 1599 Shakespeare wrote his own version
of what happened in his play Henry V. Sir Laurence Olivier made
additional changes in the 1944 movie. There was also quite a bit of
reverse engineering in the historical accounts as to why various
things happened. To keep things simple, I guess the author of the
video provided a provocative title and probably created some
additional controversy to attract additional attention.

Post by John B.
file:///home/anon/Downloads/Chapman.pdf

Ummm... that PDF is located on your computer where I can't read it.

Post by John B.
AS I understand it various "Lords" were contracted by the King to
supply various numbers of men for some for of for see
https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/agincourt-600/the-english-army-in-1415/english-army-table/\
for examples.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ArmsandArmor/comments/1c70g4a/who_are_these_archers_in_full_plate_depicted_at/

Yep. I call to your attention the interlocking alliances that were
responsible for WWI growing into an uncontrollable mess. Well, the
interlocking alliances were present during the middle ages with the
added bonus of the Feudal System creating contractual obligations
between literally everyone that lived at the time. Keeping all that
organized and accurate must have been difficult.

Post by John B.

Mike Loades has also written several books on middle ages bows and
<https://www.amazon.com/Longbow-Weapon-Mike-Loades-ebook/dp/B0BLLSM5XP>
<https://www.amazon.com/War-Bows-crossbow-composite-Japanese-ebook/dp/B07JNB7W95/>

[John B.]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

The long bow probably wasn't used against the armored French nights.
The long bow was probably used against their unarmored horses.
This discussion got me interested in the Battle of Agincourt, which
allegedly was won by the English longbow archers. I found a video on
the topic which suggests that wasn't quite true. The battle was won
by the English archers, but not so much by their use of the longbow.
The field of battle had turned to mud after several days of rain. The
French knights got bogged down and stuck in the mud. After targeting
the unarmored horses, the English archers saw the opportunity,
discarded their longbows and massacred the French knights using hand
weapons. As one might suspect, they were quite effective using hand
weapons because of the arm muscle strength required to be an archer.
There are also some interesting comments as to the knights profiting
from battles by ransoming their opponents while the lowly archers had
no such incentive to take prisoners.

Capturing and holding for ransom was a common, perhaps an overwhelming
factor in the warfare of the times. While a commoner would probably
not have the ability to do this most certainly his commander would
with the Bowman receiving some compensation.

At the Battle of Agincourt the English King ordered the execution of
prisoners at one period in the battle as so many French had been
captures that the King feared the captured might attack his army from
the rear. It has been said that this was opposed by some English
nobles who anticipated "rich pickings" from their captives.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"How The Longbow Defeated The French At Agincourt"
http://youtu.be/LHdzoPUIJhc 44:51
"9 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of Agincourt"
<https://www.history.com/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-battle-of-agincourt>
See item #5.
Incidentally, the video also shows some of the paperwork involved in
managing a for profit battle.

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=english+longbow>
<https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1X8WxFbKOJI>

More videos (by the same author) on shooting a 155 lb warbow (long
"175 lb warbow vs shield"
http://youtu.be/Svi_FNNtnVA (0:43)
14 gauge (0.072 in) steel shield. He also shoots a 165 lb and a 45 lb
recurve.
Spoiler: 175 lb penetrated the shield. 165 lbs was marginal. 45 lb
bounced off the shield.

Good choice against French mounted armor.

That depends :-)

In the battle of Cercy the English had better tactics . In the battle
of Battle of Agincourt it was largely terrain. The English were
positioned up hill behind a plowed field with forests on both sides
with the Men at Arms positioned in the center and the bowmen
positioned to the right and left of the field.

But ultimately the French won the "100 years War".

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception.

I don't see how what I wrote proves your point. A little detail
explaining what you're talking about, would be helpful. Incidentally,
nice comma splice between two unrelated comments. What does my
searching for contradictory evidence to disprove your claims have to
do with you be correct? What I do has no effect on the validity of
your claims.

Post by cyclintom
Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those
days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible.

So you say. Got any citations that confirm that 130 lbs pull would be
impossible for short people?

Post by cyclintom
I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have
no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

Got any photos of you and your long bow? Also, what was the maker and
model of your alleged long bow? If you want make amazing claims, a
little corroboration would be helpful.
I have "done nothing"? I have an old (1960's vintage) Ben Pearson
fiberglass bow in excellent condition, except that there's no model
number marking. I suspect it might have been either a very early
model or a prototype. I bought it when I started college to practice
for an archery class. I shoot left handed and the college didn't have
any appropriate bows. The measured length when strung matches the
<https://www.archerytalk.com/attachments/ben-pearson-337-04-jpg.4826826/>
<https://cornellpubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/6057.jpg>
It's a little difficult to string, but I managed. I used my Balanzza
luggage scale to measure the 25" pull at 35 lbs. Unfortunately, I
couldn't find my assortment of arrows. I'll keep looking. Photos
when I find them and the other accessories.
While my bow is not even close to a long bow, it does demonstrate that
I know a little about bows and archery. I certainly have no idea what
it's like to shoot a long bow.

Tommy is a special case :-)
But there are a number of articles, some in living color, regarding
shooting a 100 Lb. pull bow. Most of them seem to be British folk so I
assume that archery is more commonly practiced there then in the U.S.
Perhaps because English history reaches all the way to the period
when bows and arrows equaled the AR-15 in killing power :-)
Wandering around on the Internet the other day I found a post by our
very own Tom dated 2003. Can you imagine it? Nearly a quarter of a
century of being "a rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering
no useful information." (as described by Jobst Brandt)
--
Cheers,
John B.

Tommy is a xspecial case because he got wealthy being a real engineering/scientist and Liebermann is on welfare and Flunky barely makes a living and Biden and Harris have inflated Krygowski to near poverty. You can't even afford to live in the US. In the meantime I'm giving large sums to my brothers. Yes, very special indeed, compared to the likes of your lot.

And what do we see here? Liebermann who could never work as an EE in the hottest job market in the whole world telling me that I couldn't use variable wavelength signals to measure wire lengths even after its been explained to him why that method was used. Flunky who is also not a real EE tells me that all of telephone people are wrong calling Fiber Optics "light lines" because he has never heard of it. But then he couldn't understand a couple of lines of C code and you cannot be an EE without knowing how to program.

[Frank Krygowski]

Post by cyclintom

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
The strongest long bow I ever saw had a draw of 80 lbs and I can't imagine 100 lb pull. You have to hold the string hooked over your middle three fingers and how the hell do you hold 100 lbs that way? Not to mention what it would do to your other wrist. Bows might have been long distance weapons but most people used spears.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Training>
"Although the draw weight of a typical English longbow is disputed, it
was at least 81 pounds-force (360 newtons) and possibly more than 130
lbf (600 N). Considerable practice was required to produce the swift
and effective combat shooting required. Skeletons of longbow archers
are recognisably affected, with enlarged left arms and often
osteophytes on left wrists, left shoulders and right fingers."

Meaning, as usual, I was correct and you rooted arouund for any POSSIBLE esception.

I don't see how what I wrote proves your point. A little detail
explaining what you're talking about, would be helpful. Incidentally,
nice comma splice between two unrelated comments. What does my
searching for contradictory evidence to disprove your claims have to
do with you be correct? What I do has no effect on the validity of
your claims.

Post by cyclintom
Well, there's no question that people were MUCH smaller in those
days and pulling 130 lbs would have been impossible.

So you say. Got any citations that confirm that 130 lbs pull would be
impossible for short people?

Post by cyclintom
I shot long bows and you have done nothing, as usual. You have
no idea of what it is like to shoot a long bow.

Got any photos of you and your long bow? Also, what was the maker and
model of your alleged long bow? If you want make amazing claims, a
little corroboration would be helpful.
I have "done nothing"? I have an old (1960's vintage) Ben Pearson
fiberglass bow in excellent condition, except that there's no model
number marking. I suspect it might have been either a very early
model or a prototype. I bought it when I started college to practice
for an archery class. I shoot left handed and the college didn't have
any appropriate bows. The measured length when strung matches the
<https://www.archerytalk.com/attachments/ben-pearson-337-04-jpg.4826826/>
<https://cornellpubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/6057.jpg>
It's a little difficult to string, but I managed. I used my Balanzza
luggage scale to measure the 25" pull at 35 lbs. Unfortunately, I
couldn't find my assortment of arrows. I'll keep looking. Photos
when I find them and the other accessories.
While my bow is not even close to a long bow, it does demonstrate that
I know a little about bows and archery. I certainly have no idea what
it's like to shoot a long bow.

Tommy is a special case :-)
But there are a number of articles, some in living color, regarding
shooting a 100 Lb. pull bow. Most of them seem to be British folk so I
assume that archery is more commonly practiced there then in the U.S.
Perhaps because English history reaches all the way to the period
when bows and arrows equaled the AR-15 in killing power :-)
Wandering around on the Internet the other day I found a post by our
very own Tom dated 2003. Can you imagine it? Nearly a quarter of a
century of being "a rude and obnoxious, always carping while offering
no useful information." (as described by Jobst Brandt)
--
Cheers,
John B.

Tommy is a xspecial case because he got wealthy being a real engineering/scientist and Liebermann is on welfare and Flunky barely makes a living and Biden and Harris have inflated Krygowski to near poverty. You can't even afford to live in the US. In the meantime I'm giving large sums to my brothers. Yes, very special indeed, compared to the likes of your lot.
And what do we see here? Liebermann who could never work as an EE in the hottest job market in the whole world telling me that I couldn't use variable wavelength signals to measure wire lengths even after its been explained to him why that method was used. Flunky who is also not a real EE tells me that all of telephone people are wrong calling Fiber Optics "light lines" because he has never heard of it. But then he couldn't understand a couple of lines of C code and you cannot be an EE without knowing how to program.

Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.

Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

[John B.]

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.

Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.

So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
from 1961 to 1962 as shown on his online resume at:
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>

I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
too much today:

07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/LCkJkdp7BwAJ>
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."

07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>
The Vietnam Airlift lasted a grand total of 2 days:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?

07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>
More on Bayaire Avionics.

[John B.]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>

I doubt very much that any training he had was for much more then a
very few months as the A.F. has been training people since 1947, or
there about, and the normal "school day" will be about 8 hours, a
normal "work day". The usual process is to first be trained in, say,
"basic electronics" which gives you the basics and then, if required,
a course on the specific device you re going to be assigned to
service.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/LCkJkdp7BwAJ>
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>
More on Bayaire Avionics.

[cyclintom]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/LCkJkdp7BwAJ>
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>
More on Bayaire Avionics.
--
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of American behind.

Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who would have been slaughtered.

Why exactly do you lie about everything?

Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your growing dementia getting these sorts of answers? What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that used or maintained them.

US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.

You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do not think for one second that that is normal.

[Jeff Liebermann]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/LCkJkdp7BwAJ>
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various
points in Saigon."

More of the same:
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do not think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing
in your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".

The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?

Photo of the Bayaire Avionics hangar circa 1972:
<Loading Image...>
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.

I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire
as an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or
after you were in the USAF?

[Tom Kunich]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months
to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and
threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender,
instead of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have
also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a given
"Subject" into a tree. Without the tree structure, untangling
articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult. The resulting
mess also explains why Tom is switching back and forth between two
newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified
by his name vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things
you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght
back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of
the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who
would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that
used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various points
in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do not
think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing in
your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire as
an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or after you
were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you didn't
get from Wikipedia? I was there and you were hiding. You know nothing
about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit but they are
smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest attention to
you.

You are the only person in the world that thinks that helicopters are
transoceanic. You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the
American presence was 7,000 men in Saigon. Now I don't even believe you
were smart enough to change ink jet printer cartridges. There is a reason
you're on welfare.

[John B.]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months
to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and
threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender,
instead of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have
also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a given
"Subject" into a tree. Without the tree structure, untangling
articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult. The resulting
mess also explains why Tom is switching back and forth between two
newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified
by his name vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things
you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght
back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of
the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who
would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that
used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various points
in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do not
think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing in
your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire as
an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or after you
were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you didn't
get from Wikipedia? I was there and you were hiding. You know nothing
about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit but they are
smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest attention to
you.

You were in Vietnam? When was that? Before or after you spent your
tour in Guam?

And where did you do for the other 3 years and some months that you
were in the Air Force?

Or is your whole life a lie? You were never in the Air Force, you were
never on Guam and you certainly were never in Vietnam.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by John B.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tom Kunich

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back
months to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more
insults and threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he
sorted his news readers list of articles by name, subject or
sender, instead of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He
might have also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a
given "Subject" into a tree. Without the tree structure,
untangling articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult.
The resulting mess also explains why Tom is switching back and
forth between two newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan)
which can be identified by his name vacillating between
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on
about the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the
B-52 missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then
they returned and a different group was selected but for whatever
reason they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely
fantasy about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam
to Tom in Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on
that amazing claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam
Airlift as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things
you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens
retreat from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds
of American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght
back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of
the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who
would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that
used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various
points in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do
not think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing
in your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire
as an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or
after you were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you
didn't get from Wikipedia? I was there and you were hiding. You know
nothing about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit but
they are smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest
attention to you.

You were in Vietnam? When was that? Before or after you spent your tour
in Guam?
And where did you do for the other 3 years and some months that you were
in the Air Force?
Or is your whole life a lie? You were never in the Air Force, you were
never on Guam and you certainly were never in Vietnam.

John, you claim that you were in Vietnam but never in what capacity. But I
see no reason to doubt you. Even though it would mean that you changed
basic commands from SAC to TAC and SAC NEVER lets go of useful people.

So 1. Why are you lying that Guam was not classified as a war zone and 2.
Why don't you include the airspace above north and south Vietnam as being
in Vietnam?

I was on at least 3 bombing missions to Vietnam in my 3 months of TDY. I
even was in the AC's position and the Pilot turned off the autopilot and
allowed me to fly the aircraft while over Vietnam moving towards the DMZ.

Seems like you can't stand the idea that there were other people in the
Air Force that have your number.

[zen cycle]

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months
to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and
threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender,
instead of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have
also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a given
"Subject" into a tree. Without the tree structure, untangling
articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult. The resulting
mess also explains why Tom is switching back and forth between two
newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified
by his name vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on that amazing
claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret things
you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where broght
back as a reduction of force until they were all back including all of
the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese government who
would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people that
used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various points
in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do not
think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing in
your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire as
an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or after you
were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you didn't
get from Wikipedia?
I was there and you were hiding.

You were in guam, not vietnam.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You know nothing
about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit but they are
smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest attention to
you.
You are the only person in the world that thinks that helicopters are
transoceanic.

The vietnam airlift wasn't transoceanic.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the
American presence was 7,000 men in Saigon.

JEff didn't write that. The links he posted state the following:

"Although U.S. combat troops departed South Vietnam in 1973......Several
thousand U.S. citizens remained in the country at the Defense Attaché
Office at Tan Son Nhut Airport, the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, and
consulates at Da Nang, Nha Trang, Bien Hoa, and Can Tho."

"April 1975, the U.S. Air Force flew 201 C-141 missions and 174 C-130
sorties and evacuated more than 45,000 people from Saigon, including
5,600 U.S. citizens. Still, the U.S. Ambassador, his staff, and many
more U.S. citizens and refugees remained in South Vietnam. They would
have to be evacuated by helicopter, in an operation known as Frequent
Wind. "

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now I don't even believe you
were smart enough to change ink jet printer cartridges. There is a reason
you're on welfare.

You would do well to read a little bit of history before embarrassing
yourself yet again.

[AMuzi]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:30:58 GMT, cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

On Mon, 04 Nov 2024 12:37:45 +0700, John B.

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's
digging back months
to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl
more insults and
threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home.
Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad".  My guess(tm) is
that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or
sender,
instead of by date.  It's easy to do by accident.  He
might have
also turned off threading, which arranges articles on
a given
"Subject" into a tree.  Without the tree structure,
untangling
articles into a logical sequence is rather
difficult.  The resulting
mess also explains why Tom is switching back and
forth between two
newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan) which
can be identified
by his name vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom
Kunich".  The
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
Re:" mess in the
subject line.  The Windoze version of Pan is also
well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend
to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes
on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support
of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90
days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for
whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served
in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in
Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4
year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at
the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly
at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly
unlikely fantasy
about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from
Vietnam to Tom in
Oakland and then back to Vietnam.  Here's something on
that amazing
claim.  There's more but it's late and I'm burned out
from relaxing
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by cyclintom

"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the
Vietnam Airlift
as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by cyclintom

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in
Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the
helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by cyclintom

More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to
interpret things
you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that
ASS Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left

hundreds of

Post by cyclintom
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not
someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican
troops where broght
back as a reduction of force until they were all back
including all of
the civilian agencies and most of the South Vietnamese
government who
would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for
them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of
the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of
the people that
used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from
various points
in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/
Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL
AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial
aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad
decision. Do not
think for one second that that is normal.

Tom.  That's a really great example of you attempting to
change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes.
There is nothing in
your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of
the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician.  In
other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800
nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so
you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics
equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics?
What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked
for Bayaire as
an avionics technician in Oakland.  Was that before,
during or after you
were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam
that you didn't
get from Wikipedia? I was there and you were hiding.

You were in guam, not vietnam.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You know nothing
about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit
but they are
smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest
attention to
you.
You are the only person in the world that thinks that
helicopters are
transoceanic.

The vietnam airlift wasn't transoceanic.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the
American presence was 7,000 men in Saigon.

JEff didn't write that. The links he posted state the
"Although U.S. combat troops departed South Vietnam in
1973......Several thousand U.S. citizens remained in the
country at the Defense Attaché Office at Tan Son Nhut
Airport, the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, and consulates at Da
Nang, Nha Trang, Bien Hoa, and Can Tho."
"April 1975, the U.S. Air Force flew 201 C-141 missions and
174 C-130 sorties and evacuated more than 45,000 people from
Saigon, including 5,600 U.S. citizens. Still, the U.S.
Ambassador, his staff, and many more U.S. citizens and
refugees remained in South Vietnam. They would have to be
evacuated by helicopter, in an operation known as Frequent
Wind. "

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now I don't even believe you
were smart enough to change ink jet printer cartridges.
There is a reason
you're on welfare.

You would do well to read a little bit of history before
embarrassing yourself yet again.

+1
Even people who read the papers at that time generally
miscategorize and misremember the Saigon evacuation.

[Tom Kunich]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back
months to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more
insults and threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something
even worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad".  My guess(tm) is that he
sorted his news readers list of articles by name, subject or
sender,
instead of by date.  It's easy to do by accident.  He might have
also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a given
"Subject" into a tree.  Without the tree structure, untangling
articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult.  The
resulting mess also explains why Tom is switching back and forth
between two newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan) which
can be identified by his name vacillating between "cyclintom" and
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
Re:" mess in the subject line.  The Windoze version of Pan is
also well behind the current Linux version, which means that Pan
bugs tend to become permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on
about the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the
B-52 missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then
they returned and a different group was selected but for whatever
reason they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for
3 months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as
though that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year
A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely
fantasy about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from
Vietnam to Tom in Oakland and then back to Vietnam.  Here's
something on that amazing claim.  There's more but it's late and
07/04/2022 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam
Airlift as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022 <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/
ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret
things you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS
Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left

hundreds of

Post by cyclintom
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone
like you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where
broght back as a reduction of force until they were all back
including all of the civilian agencies and most of the South
Vietnamese government who would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people
that used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind> "More than
7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various points in
Saigon."
More of the same: <https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/
Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by cyclintom

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do
not think for one second that that is normal.

Tom.  That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing
in your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician.  In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical
miles from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you,
in a commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics
equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by cyclintom
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire
as an avionics technician in Oakland.  Was that before, during or
after you were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you
didn't get from Wikipedia? I was there and you were hiding.

You were in guam, not vietnam.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You know nothing about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad
vomit but they are smarter than you and know better than to pay the
slightest attention to you.
You are the only person in the world that thinks that helicopters are
transoceanic.

The vietnam airlift wasn't transoceanic.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the American
presence was 7,000 men in Saigon.

"Although U.S. combat troops departed South Vietnam in
1973......Several thousand U.S. citizens remained in the country at the
Defense Attaché Office at Tan Son Nhut Airport, the U.S. Embassy in
Saigon, and consulates at Da Nang, Nha Trang, Bien Hoa, and Can Tho."
"April 1975, the U.S. Air Force flew 201 C-141 missions and 174 C-130
sorties and evacuated more than 45,000 people from Saigon, including
5,600 U.S. citizens. Still, the U.S. Ambassador, his staff, and many
more U.S. citizens and refugees remained in South Vietnam. They would
have to be evacuated by helicopter, in an operation known as Frequent
Wind. "

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now I don't even believe you were smart enough to change ink jet
printer cartridges. There is a reason you're on welfare.

You would do well to read a little bit of history before embarrassing
yourself yet again.

+1 Even people who read the papers at that time generally miscategorize
and misremember the Saigon evacuation.

At the time of Vietnam and conscription there were only some 9,000,000 men
in the combined services. Of that less than a third saw service in Vietnam.

Liebermann said that the the Vietnam airlift lasted TWO Days and yet I
worked as the sole electronics recovery technician for all of the minor
airlines in the entirety of northern California. Major Airlines like
United and Pan Am had their own crews.

A DC-8 carried about 300 passengers and a Boeing 707 less than 200. Less
than 3 million military served in Vietnam. So just two flights a day of
each would take 16 years to move that many men. And they ALL transferred
through Guam. You know that place that John claims was a sissy place that
only handled hundreds of tone of high explosives every day. Where ONE
mistake could activate and detonate a 2,000 lb bomb. When they were
loading bombers no one was allowed on the flight line but MMS (Munitions
Maintenance Squadron). That was because according to John they were
perfectly safe.

I worked from 1970 for 4 years at Bayaire Avionics. It sickens me that
people like that cowardly Liebermann or Flunky would DARE to make a single
comment about Viernam or deny the CIA running drugs from the poppy fields
in Cambodia when it was coming through Guam on military aircraft and the
recovery crews would wear gas masks to prevent inhailing heroin dust.

Exactly why are people that know nothing about that fucking war, that the
THREAT of JFK to pull out, had the CIA assassinate him? Oswald made the
mistake of saying to the camera, "I was set up" and somehow, oh so common,
a nightclub owner - Jack Ruby just happened to be in the Dallas Police
Department Holding facility and he just happened to avoid police scrutiny
and was armed. He killed Lee Harvey Oswald who was a known CIA sniper and
was condemned to death. Unfortunately he got a mistrial and a chance at a
retrial from a competent lawyer.

Who knows what he would have said. Then it was suddenly claimed that he
had cancer which was KNOWN already to be caused by a simian virus. But
instead when he still had time to sit before a jury, he died of a
pulmonary embolism. Like the Warren Commission, who failed to notice that
JFK was hit both from the back and from the front with two bullets (the
second shooter on the Grassy Knoll) they failed to note that the Pulmonary
Embolism was caused by broken ribs from a night stick clubbing. Why shades
of Epstein where the cameras just happened to be not working or pointing
in the wrong direction and the guards just happened to miss their usual
check on high danger prisoners and he just happened to have an illegal set
of pajamas that just happened to be strong enough to hang himself with.

By the way, just watch the JFK shooting and you can actually see him roll
forward with the Oswald shot and was then thrown backwards by the shot
from the front which was claimed to be a "nothing more than a recoil" from
the first shot. BS - his body recoiling off of the seat in front of him,
would have been slack and slow. Not violently thrown back. Other unfired
bullets were found in the car afterwards. Why didn't the Warren Commission
investigate them?

[Tom Kunich]

Post by zen cycle

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann

On Sun, 03 Nov 2024 19:12:04 -0800, Jeff Liebermann

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back
months to resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more
insults and threats at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even
worse than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he
sorted his news readers list of articles by name, subject or
sender, instead of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He
might have also turned off threading, which arranges articles on a
given "Subject" into a tree. Without the tree structure,
untangling articles into a logical sequence is rather difficult.
The resulting mess also explains why Tom is switching back and
forth between two newsreaders (newshosting.com reader and Pan)
which can be identified by his name vacillating between
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on
about the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the
B-52 missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then
they returned and a different group was selected but for whatever
reason they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?

I don't know anything about how the USAF operated at the time.
Presumably, it was after he had some training, possibly at Lowry AFB
<https://www.linkedin.com/in/tom-kunich-22012/>
I didn't know what to think until Tom posted a highly unlikely
fantasy about how the USAF sent avionics for him to fix from Vietnam
to Tom in Oakland and then back to Vietnam. Here's something on
that amazing claim. There's more but it's late and I'm burned out
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

LCkJkdp7BwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
"I worked for Bayaire Avionics for 4 years during the Vietnam
Airlift as an avionics technician."
07/04/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

p0Ugd2OEBwAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
I'm missing something here. The Vietnam Airlift was in Vietnam.
Bayaire was in Oakland, CA. Did they fly the helicopters back and
forth across the Pacific Ocean?
07/05/2022
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/ZMiLSdqisfg/m/

Hvi1fsv9AQAJ>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom

Post by Jeff Liebermann
More on Bayaire Avionics.

Jeff, you've never done anything. Please don't try to interpret
things you can't understand. The Vietnam airlift wasn't that ASS
Bidens retreat
from Afghanistan and Iraq which took 2 days and left hundreds of
American behind.
Vietnam was a planned retreat that Nixon planned and not someone like
you who doesn't know anything. All of the Aemrican troops where
broght back as a reduction of force until they were all back
including all of the civilian agencies and most of the South
Vietnamese government who would have been slaughtered.
Why exactly do you lie about everything?
Where did the Air Force send me anything to fix for them? Is your
growing dementia getting these sorts of answers?
What dod Helicopters have to do with anything? All of the American
vehicles were shipped back to the US along with all of the people
that used or maintained them.

The airlift was bout moving people out of South Vietnam.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Frequent_Wind>
"More than 7,000 people were evacuated by helicopter from various
points in Saigon."
<https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458955/1975-

operation-babylift-and-frequent-wind/>

Post by Jeff Liebermann

Post by cyclintom
US military was returned to the states via COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT you
stupid twit. And Bayaire Avionics maintained commercial aircraft.
You entire life has been one of bad decision after bad decision. Do
not think for one second that that is normal.

Tom. That's a really great example of you attempting to change the
topic and divert attention away from your mistakes. There is nothing
in your reply that mentions your airlift, the duration of the airlift,
or your 4 years working as an avionics technician. In other words, a
random assortment of unrelated "facts".
The US "military" did not ship avionics equipment 6,800 nautical miles
from Vietnam to Oakland California and back again just so you, in a
commercial avionics shop, could work on military avionics equipment.
How would they get their training on military avionics? What happened
to working on Guam?
<https://twinotterarchive.com/

154_N7663_unk_Oakland_Jul-1972_ejc_1024a.jpg>

Post by Jeff Liebermann
I'm trying to visualize cramming a B-52 into that hangar.
I would be interested in knowing which 4 years you worked for Bayaire
as an avionics technician in Oakland. Was that before, during or
after you were in the USAF?

Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you
didn't get from Wikipedia?
I was there and you were hiding.

You were in guam, not vietnam.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You know nothing about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad
vomit but they are smarter than you and know better than to pay the
slightest attention to you.
You are the only person in the world that thinks that helicopters are
transoceanic.

The vietnam airlift wasn't transoceanic.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the American
presence was 7,000 men in Saigon.

"Although U.S. combat troops departed South Vietnam in 1973......Several
thousand U.S. citizens remained in the country at the Defense Attaché
Office at Tan Son Nhut Airport, the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, and
consulates at Da Nang, Nha Trang, Bien Hoa, and Can Tho."
"April 1975, the U.S. Air Force flew 201 C-141 missions and 174 C-130
sorties and evacuated more than 45,000 people from Saigon, including
5,600 U.S. citizens. Still, the U.S. Ambassador, his staff, and many
more U.S. citizens and refugees remained in South Vietnam. They would
have to be evacuated by helicopter, in an operation known as Frequent
Wind. "

Post by Jeff Liebermann
Now I don't even believe you were smart enough to change ink jet
printer cartridges. There is a reason you're on welfare.

You would do well to read a little bit of history before embarrassing
yourself yet again.

Tell everyone when you were in the military, what service and what your
eventual rank was. When you know nothing whatsoever, most people would
keep their stupid trap's shut. Liebermann SAID that there were 7,000
people in Vietnam and the "Vietnam airlift" lasted 2 days. You must be
getting a queer horniness to give Liebermann a blow job.

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:31:30 -0000 (UTC), Tom Kunich

Post by Tom Kunich
Tell everyone here what you personally knew about Vietnam that you didn't
get from Wikipedia?

Why would I want to have a discussion with you when you change the
topic every message? (Like I'm doing right now).

Post by Tom Kunich
I was there and you were hiding. You know nothing
about it and pretend you do. You would make a toad vomit but they are
smarter than you and know better than to pay the slightest attention to
you.

You have already announced that you don't care if anyone doesn't
believe you. Why should I care about your opinion.

11/30/2024
<https://rec.bicycles.tech.narkive.com/bbmTwgmN/investments#post3>
Message-ID: <VyG2P.9102$***@fx12.iad>
"You are under no mandate to believe me you ass. I couldn't care less
what you believe or not."

Post by Tom Kunich
You are the only person in the world that thinks that helicopters are
transoceanic.

I didn't say that.
<https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/fall-saigon-cartoons-flna743318>
That reminds me, where were you and what were you doing between when
you left the USAF in 1963 and your first(?) job at Thoratec in 1984?

01/27/2019
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.bicycles.tech/c/IRvenWOvr90/m/Mn7gb10kDgAJ>
"When I got out of the Air Force, the first job I got was at Physics
International and was assistant on a high energy nuclear research
machine."

Were you working at Physics International when they accidentally
dumped 3000 gallons of mineral oil in SF Bay? If yes, can I blame you
for causing the oil spill?
<https://incidentnews.noaa.gov/incident/6351>

Post by Tom Kunich
You are the only one in the whole world that thinks that the
American presence was 7,000 men in Saigon.

I didn't hire you to think for me. I certainly would not have hired
someone who can barely think for himself.

Post by Tom Kunich
Now I don't even believe you
were smart enough to change ink jet printer cartridges.

Is I recall, you were having problems with your HP printer. Did you
ever get it working? Does everything you claim to own have problems?

Post by Tom Kunich
There is a reason you're on welfare.

It's called Social Security. Try not to bite the hand the is probably
feeding you.

[cyclintom]

Post by John B.

Post by Jeff Liebermann
On Sun, 3 Nov 2024 20:49:03 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Post by Frank Krygowski
Tom's demons are strong and raging today! He's digging back months to
resurrect piles of dead threads so he can hurl more insults and threats
at those who have disrespected him.
Something very bad must have happened at his home. Something even worse
than botching a component installation yet again!

It probably wasn't something "bad". My guess(tm) is that he sorted
his news readers list of articles by name, subject or sender, instead
of by date. It's easy to do by accident. He might have also turned
off threading, which arranges articles on a given "Subject" into a
tree. Without the tree structure, untangling articles into a logical
sequence is rather difficult. The resulting mess also explains why
Tom is switching back and forth between two newsreaders
(newshosting.com reader and Pan) which can be identified by his name
vacillating between "cyclintom" and "Tom Kunich". The newshosting.com
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
is also responsible for the multiple "RE: Re: RE: Re:" mess in the
subject line. The Windoze version of Pan is also well behind the
current Linux version, which means that Pan bugs tend to become
permanent.

I really wonder about some of Tommy's posts. He goes on and on about
the period he seems to have spent at Guam in support of the B-52
missions over N Vietnam.
Our base sent people temporary duty to Guam for 90 days and then they
returned and a different group was selected but for whatever reason
they weren't required to go.
So out of a 4 year enlistment some of out guys served in Guam for 3
months but Tommy's post are all about his service in Guam as though
that was the only place he served during his entire 4 year A.F.
service... or maybe he was never in the A.F. at all?
--
Cheers,
John B.

That's right - 90 days TDY for myt last 120 days in the service. But I flew Chrome Dome pretty often. Enough that I grew bored of it. How many active duty flights were you on?

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

Thanks. Beyond that, I pointed out here (and elsewhere) on
Russia's invasion of Ukraine that they had a really crappy
army as they are mostly short-term conscripts, treated badly
in general and lacking career noncoms and warrant officers.
This is a nontrivial point regarding education and training
often called 'institutional memory'. Until recently our own
forces were especially effective, with highly skilled
noncoms, warrant officers and field officers not only well
trained but also given more latitude in decision making than
others, especially the Russian army. Which is why they have
lost so many flag officers in the past few years; they do
not have a competent career field officer and noncom base.

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean
"collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as  any advanced
knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's
and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much
better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August
1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat
poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 -
30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the
English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were
killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to
8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with
about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000
captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not
great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery
and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age
and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies,
bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow"
might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it
originated in that
country(s).

Thanks.  Beyond that, I pointed out here (and elsewhere) on
Russia's invasion of Ukraine that they had a really crappy
army as they are mostly short-term conscripts, treated badly
in general and lacking career noncoms and warrant officers.
This is a nontrivial point regarding education and training
often called 'institutional memory'.  Until recently our own
forces were especially effective, with highly skilled
noncoms, warrant officers and field officers not only well
trained but also given more latitude in decision making than
others, especially the Russian army.  Which is why they have
lost so many flag officers in the past few years; they do
not have a competent career field officer and noncom base.

p.s. a short exposition on that:
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russian-generals-ukraine-killed/

[John B.]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

Thanks. Beyond that, I pointed out here (and elsewhere) on
Russia's invasion of Ukraine that they had a really crappy
army as they are mostly short-term conscripts, treated badly
in general and lacking career noncoms and warrant officers.
This is a nontrivial point regarding education and training
often called 'institutional memory'. Until recently our own
forces were especially effective, with highly skilled
noncoms, warrant officers and field officers not only well
trained but also given more latitude in decision making than
others, especially the Russian army. Which is why they have
lost so many flag officers in the past few years; they do
not have a competent career field officer and noncom base.

Its not so much "highly skilled", in a technical sense, as it is
knowing how to get people to do something that a sane person wouldn't
have any part of. One of the subjects that most officer candidates are
taught is how to erect a 100 ft. flagpole in the middle of a one acre
parade field.

You simply turn to your Sergeant and say, "Sergeant we'll erect this
pole here in the middle of the field and it would be good if it was
finished by Monday. And don't come back 'till Monday :-)

[cyclintom]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).
--
Cheers,
John B.

More to the point, in the Pacific in WW II the Japanese almost always outnumbered the Marines but with Bonzi charges threw themselves into the heavy machine gun fire of the Marines. The Marines were taught that they have to protect their own lives while the Japanese were taught that it was their durty to attack. The battlefields were impossibly filled with death and detruction and the most of it were Japanese. This endless killing psychologicall affected the Maines in many ways. Which made their lives harder after the war.

[John B.]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).
--
Cheers,
John B.

More to the point, in the Pacific in WW II the Japanese almost

always outnumbered the Marines but with Bonzi charges threw themselves
into the heavy machine gun fire of the Marines. The Marines were
taught that they have to protect their own lives while the Japanese
were taught that it was their durty to attack. The battlefields were
impossibly filled with death and detruction and the most of it were
Japanese. This endless killing psychologicall affected the Maines in
many ways. Which made their lives harder after the war.
Yes but :-) The Japanese were more or less "trapped" on the island and
remember surrendering was a no-no in the Japanese military.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That’s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it’s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren’t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That’s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it’s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That’s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it’s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000–15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren’t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That’s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it’s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.

https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

[cyclintom]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crcy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,00015,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/
--
Andrew Muzi
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

It is my opinion that actual education move from apprintices to indirect education with the publishing of books in a common language. Until the 1700's almost no one could read. Most kings were illiterate and had scribes to handle the heavy work of thinking.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That’s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it’s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren’t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That’s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it’s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

[John B.]

On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That’s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it’s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren’t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That’s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it’s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That’s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it’s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Crécy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren’t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That’s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it’s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

[cyclintom]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

That changed.

I am not a hunter but I know enough people that venison
magically appears a couple of times each season. Since you
know Wisconsin, you probably recall when guys left work on a
Friday and drove all night to go "up nort' " for deer
season. That tasted decidedly wild.

Now the 'rats with antlers' are teeming here in the south of
the state and they eat corn. A lot of corn. Much better flavor.

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

That changed.
I am not a hunter but I know enough people that venison
magically appears a couple of times each season. Since you
know Wisconsin, you probably recall when guys left work on a
Friday and drove all night to go "up nort' " for deer
season. That tasted decidedly wild.

Yes it did. Deer are browsers, not grazers like beef. They eat the
tips off evergreen trees and that's the wide taste. They'll even do
that sometimes when corn is available. I there were corn fields all
around me when I lived near Mt Horeb, yet they nibbled the tops off my
Blue Spruces. Luckily, the trees know enough to substitute another
branch for the top. It works, but it puts a wrinkle in the tree.

Post by AMuzi
Now the 'rats with antlers' are teeming here in the south of
the state and they eat corn. A lot of corn. Much better flavor.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then
stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other
hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

Some of restaurants around here sell the venison or rather cook with the
deer that have been culled in the royal parks Richmond/Bushy Park which are
for city parks large and set up as deer parks for hunting.

I don’t remember it being tough or dry though it’s many years since I’ve
eaten it.

Roger Merrimab

[Catrike Ryder]

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then
stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other
hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

Some of restaurants around here sell the venison or rather cook with the
deer that have been culled in the royal parks Richmond/Bushy Park which are
for city parks large and set up as deer parks for hunting.
I don’t remember it being tough or dry though it’s many years since I’ve
eaten it.
Roger Merrimab

Venison (white tail deer) has about half the saturated fat as beef.
Fat is what carries the flavor.

[Roger Merriman]

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by Roger Merriman

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by cyclintom

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by John B.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 18:09:26 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder

Post by AMuzi

Post by Catrike Ryder
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 06:04:55 -0400, Catrike Ryder

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The problem is that "higher education" has come to mean "collage
education" when in fact it should be seen as any advanced knowledge.

That?s rather less knowledge as bows had been known about for hundred if
not thousands of years but it?s refinement and more importantly tactics,
with such a bow.

Post by Catrike Ryder
A rather vivid example is the English Bowman of the 1300's and 1400s
were able to win battles against much larger and much better equipped
French forces.The Battle of Cr?cy took place on 26 August 1346 between
an English army of from 7,000 to 15,000 (data was somewhat poor in
those days) was able to defeat an army of from 20,000 - 30,000 French
who were equipped with far better equipment. Loses on the English side
was in the region of 1 for every 13-15 French who were killed.
In the Battle of Agincourt about 100 year later 6,000 to 8,000 English
took on some 14,000?15,000 French and beat them again with about 600
English losses versus 6,000 French losses, and 600 - 2,000 captured.
While the difference in formal education was probably not great, among
the Gentry, the English had a program to encourage archery and boys
might start archery training as early as 10 years of age and there was
a "government program" to manufacture archery supplies, bows and
arrows.

Bow men weren?t Gentry but the middle classes which was part of the
audacity of it!

Post by Catrike Ryder
By the way, for anyone that cares the "English Long Bow" might better
be called the Welch Long Bow" as it is though it originated in that
country(s).

That?s is the lore but frankly no one knows, it?s likely to have been used
in both Wales and England note that Welsh means foreigners to the Normans
which includes the English, or rather the Anglo Saxons and other peoples in
Britain at that time.
Roger Merriman

No one claimed the Welsh invented bows but the general
familiarity and skill of making and effectively hitting
targets with them, across the entire island generally,
proved effective.
https://thehistoryjar.com/2015/12/23/unlawful-games-at-christmas/

I bought a Fred Bear "Polar" semi-recurve to hunt with, but backed
away when I had a good shot at a nice buck. I had no problem with a
gun, which I could quickly take down with a clean shot, but I just
couldn't try to put an arrow into that magnificent animal. Most arrow
shot animals suffer long and hard before finally going down.

Not to start a big argument but I wonder how many deer are killed -
drop down dead - with one shot from a rifle. Not that 1've shot a lot
of deer but listening to my father and grandfather, who had a lot of
shot deer seemed to travel a significant distance after being shot.
With much lamenting about having to haul it back to the car/truck.

Probably not as many as have been bragged about, but the fact is that
a lead 30 caliber bullet does a lot more damage than a razor sharp
arrow. I once found a dead arrow gut shot doe in my woods and I
wondered how long she had carried that thing around. Not that a bullet
in the belly would have been a lot better, at least it wouldn't have
had that thing sticking out and rubbing against everything she walked
around.

I didn't mind hunting pheasants but I only shot one deer and then
stopped hunting them. I did occassionally get deer meat from other
hunters but it is tough as hell as I remember it and doesn't taste as well as beef.

No it doesn't, but it's better if it's corn fed. It's also a bit dry.
We used to can it, with some bacon mixed in.

Some of restaurants around here sell the venison or rather cook with the
deer that have been culled in the royal parks Richmond/Bushy Park which are
for city parks large and set up as deer parks for hunting.
I don’t remember it being tough or dry though it’s many years since I’ve
eaten it.
Roger Merrimab

Venison (white tail deer) has about half the saturated fat as beef.
Fat is what carries the flavor.

The deer I’ve eaten has been Red Deer so while deer they are well larger
beasts, I think White tail etc are around same size as the roe deer, even
in the parks tend to be flighty, where as the red deer particularly the
bucks, are not bothered by your presence within reason.

One of my colleagues once managed to cycle into one as in those days bike
lights were fairly pathetic in terms of power, and deer do seem to have
light absorbing coats!

Either way described it as cycling into a wall that someone has laid a wet
smelly rug on!

Neither party was hurt!

Roger Merriman

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

The same theme was covered in a WSJ feature story yesterday,
page 9. That's USA's highest circulation paper BTW.

Half of 4-year grads are not employed in their degree field
five years out.

IMHO that's neither good nor bad, just perhaps
counterintuitive.

We all know highly successful people whose degree prepared
them, often indirectly, for achievement in other areas. My
brother the scientist is well respected with a steady stream
of published papers frequently cited in his field which is
unrelated to his actual degree area. One of our founders:

Loading Image...

returned to university in his 40s for a second four year
degree in architecture and passed his licenture. After two
years of menial fast food and dentist office buildings at an
established firm, he moved on to a different more lucrative,
successful and satisfying career.

They are not all that unusual. And then again we all know
PhD cab drivers and pizza delivery guys.

[AMuzi]

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

Sometimes an advanced degree imparts skills applicable to a
later, seemingly unrelated, field. Breaking news this morning:

https://nypost.com/2024/08/22/entertainment/how-jasveen-sangha-became-hollywoods-ketamine-queen/

[cyclintom]

Post by Catrike Ryder
https://hbr.org/2010/07/higher-education-is-highly-ove

This is the problem with Flunky and Liebermann. While Flunky ea aomewhat brighter than Liebermann, 6 years in college taught Liebermann no more than what he went in with. Krygowski believes that he is smart not because he has ever dobe thing himself but because he assigned homewoerk to other people who went on to become successful.

These three are very curious to me since with only a high school education I was able to fully comprehend virtually the entire field. Of course I READ which Flunky is unaware that is where knowledge starts.