Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

World's Largest Fossil Forest, and One of the Oldest 245

Posted by kdawson from the like-insects-in-amber dept.
solitas writes in with news from last week of the discovery of a fossilized forest in Illinois. The forest was found in the ceiling of a working coal mine, 250 feet below the surface. It was drowned 300 million years ago in an earthquake, its discoverers speculate — here is a graphic of its formation. Geologists are excited because the huge fossilized forest, over 25 square miles in extent, preserves trees and other plants upright, as they grew.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World's Largest Fossil Forest, and One of the Oldest More

World's Largest Fossil Forest, and One of the Oldest

Comments Filter:

  • There's no way it's 300 million years old (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 30, 2007 @07:21PM (#18935343)
    It's 6000, tops.
    • For anyone who says they really believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old, I have a a modest proposal [homeuix.org]:

      Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very intere

      • It doesn't add anything important, but here's the correct link [homeunix.org].

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Forge ( 2456 )
          I don't get it.

          Why should "flood Geology", (I.e. The notion that 4 or 5 thousand years ago the earth was flooded) predict where oil, coal and natural gas are buried?

          According to the scripture, the whole flood lasted less than 3 months, from 1st raindrops till water subsided enough for the Arc to land and it's passengers disembark.
      • If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?

        Because God put the 'fossil' fuels there as a temptation and the objective for any good Christian is to do without 'fossil' fuels?

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by Red Flayer ( 890720 )

        Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth?

        Yes.

        If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found?

        Who are we to presume knowledge of the wisdom of he-that-is-all-knowing-and-all-powerful?

        How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?

        What you're asking, in essence, is why is no one researching the intent and methods of YHWH. If you feel the need to research this, then obviously your faith is lacking -- perhaps you should spend less time at the Universityy of Faithlessness

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Korin43 ( 881732 )
          Is there a way to mod something -1 stupid? I shall sum up this comment in one sentence: "We shouldn't even try to think. Only God can do that."
          • Sorry. Left off the sarcasm tag.

            Your response is exactly what I alluding to -- the OP challenged creationists to apply reasoning to their view of creation -- and it's impossible to debate a matter of pure faith.

            The problem cannot be addressed via logic, reason, or scientific processes. IMO, it will only ever be resolved through education of the young before they are brainwashed, and that will never happen as long as we don't enforce 100% secular education.

            And, unfortunately, guess what population h

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by dsanfte ( 443781 )
              "Faith" is too kind a word for what their ilk resort to. I prefer "willful self-delusion".
              • I'm sorry, but I don't see the difference. "Faith" means believing in something without a shred of evidence. The only difference I can see between the young-earth Christians and others (like, say, the Jews) is that the young-earth people hold a faith that directly contradicts overwhelming evidence.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by dsanfte ( 443781 )
                  Well, "Faith" has a positive connotation that I'd prefer not to see ascribed to such intellectual laziness.

        • Basically the fundamentalist creationist God is a magic God that does illogical things to try and trick you into going to hell.

          There is no point in arguing with a group of people who gives counter arguments along the lines of 'you couldn't possibly understand the great wisdom of God', or 'God can do anything'. No amount of logic can change the mind of such people.

          Just take solace in that the creationist sect is a tiny, tiny majority of the worldwide Christians - probably much less than 1%. Arguably they

          • I hope you detected the sarcasm...

            Just take solace in that the creationist sect is a tiny, tiny majority of the worldwide Christians - probably much less than 1%. Arguably they shouldn't even be called Christians since their beliefs are so different than the rest of the religion.

            I wish it were so. Fundamentalist Christians represent about 35% of the voting US population (approx 70% of those who voted for Bush) according to many researchers, and the disparate birth rates will only serve to increase that pro

            • Just take solace in that the creationist sect is a tiny, tiny majority of the worldwide Christians - probably much less than 1%. Arguably they shouldn't even be called Christians since their beliefs are so different than the rest of the religion.

              I wish it were so. Fundamentalist Christians represent about 35% of the voting US population (approx 70% of those who voted for Bush) according to many researchers, and the disparate birth rates will only serve to increase that proportion

              Yes the US is a strange a

              • Almost three quarters of them are Catholic which do not have funademtalist beliefs (the catholic church has publicly embraced evolution)

                I don't know if "embraced" is the right word. It tolerates it, mostly: "The Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, insofar as it inquiries into the origin o

        • So, if the earth is only 6000 years old, did the cities of these people [wikipedia.org] ship with the earth when it was created? You also seem to be ignoring literature from other civilizations [wikipedia.org] which mention their gods to be from the period when the Christian Earth was created. I re-read what you wrote, if there is a satire in your argument, then it is very subtle and I have missed it.

          But assuming that evidence is false while putting in a blind belief in God is a very disturbing thought.

  • Speculating already! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dublinclontarf ( 777338 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @07:35PM (#18935461) Homepage
    "It was drowned 300 million years ago in an earthquake, its discoverers speculate" They only just found this thing and they're giving it's life story. In other news: Archaeologists found a small piece of pottery near the site, they believe it to have been a pre-historic settlement. They have managed to reconstruct their entire society.... here's an artists impression. http://www.speedygrl.com/Racer/wallpaper/flintston es.jpg [speedygrl.com]

    • Re:Speculating already! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Monday April 30, 2007 @07:56PM (#18935643) Homepage Journal
      Yes, they're speculating

      They're not asserting, they're not theorizing, they're not even hypothesizing. Because before you can get to that point, you have to ask questions. You have to say, "I wonder if ..."

      For every scientist who actually makes an outrageous claim, there are a million idiots saying, "Those damn scientists, always claiming stuff they can't prove!" whether or not that bears any relation to what's really going on. Sure, unsupported claims in science are a problem. But a bigger problem is anti-scientists who deliberately fail to differentiate between theory, hypothesis, and that first-step sense of wonder which is at the root of discovery.
      • I agree. It's a lot like the creative process, brainstorming, and then narrowing down your options based on whether or not they fit the circumstances.

      • But a bigger problem is anti-scientists who deliberately fail to differentiate between theory, hypothesis, and that first-step sense of wonder which is at the root of discovery

        But if they stopped caricaturing science then it would be much harder to oppose what they've been opposing since the Enlightenment. They have to build a case, go on the offensive, and attack the scientific/methodologically materialistic way of looking at the world, which they can't credibly do if they don't "fail to differentiat

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Traa ( 158207 )
      If you read Bill Bryson's "A short History of nearly everything" [amazon.com] you will read some wonderful stories on how in archeology as well as the field of paleontology wild speculation is used frequently to fill in the gaps. Books upon books have been written on the findings of sometimes just a single bone, even when that bone wasn't shared among scientists! Fascinating fields of science :-)

  • Not fuel! (Score:2, Funny)

    by sunami ( 751539 )
    I swear, I had to read that 3 times before I stopped seeing "fossilized fuel forest."

    • Re:Not fuel! (Score:5, Funny)

      by Daniel Dvorkin ( 106857 ) * on Monday April 30, 2007 @07:58PM (#18935663) Homepage Journal
      Good thing it's not, 'cause otherwise we'd be invading Illinois first thing tomorrow.
      • Nah, they're safe, Congress just passed a new law. In order for us to invade a place, the President has to find it on a map first (with Karl Rove safely sealed in carbonite, to ensure no cheating).

      • I swear, I had to read that 3 times before I stopped seeing "fossilized fuel forest."

        Good thing it's not, 'cause otherwise we'd be invading Illinois first thing tomorrow.

        Dude, it's in a friggin coal mine. Fossil fuels are at play here, just not new ones.

        Cheers
  • The accompanying graphic is surreal for a moment, until you connect the dots. Hehem: "Illinois is near the equator."

    For a moment, you think, like Pluto not being a planet any longer, someone has changed the rules of the game. Did we throw Mercator maps out the window? Are we using real maps now, that show the world as it is, and it's not really a globe at all? What is Illinois, really? And why is it at the equator?

    -----
    (Yes, continental drift. I know. But surreal, for that moment. And therefore fun.)
  • The second sentence from the article:

    The four-square-mile fossil forest the largest find ever is just south of Danville in Vermilion County, Ill., in the 300-million-year-old Herrin coal bed, a 6-foot-thick strip mined by a subsidiary of St. Louis-based Peabody Coal.

  • Some background information for folks. (Score:5, Informative)

    by slashdotsyncline ( 1095441 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @10:05PM (#18936603)
    Hi,

    One of the authors here (Scott Elrick - geologist from the Illinois State Geological Survey). I would be happy to answer questions from folks... or at least try!

    I can start by giving a basic overview of the discovery, what we found, and how it is important (to paleobotanists that is).

    The location of the fossils is just to the south and west of Danville, IL, itself about 30 miles to the east of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign (say hi to HAL when you come to visit). The forest was found directly above the Herrin coal seam in the Riola and Vermillion Grove coal mines, owned by Black Beauty coal (a subsidiary of Peabody Energy). The mines cover approximately 15 square miles and the study area was about 4 square miles... actually 1000 hectares. (I'm rounding up the square miles)

    Okay, so what's so cool? If you are a geologist and read the headlines that have been popping up about the story, you may have scoffed and shook your head saying, "What do they mean largest fossil forest? A coal seam is nothing but the fossil remnants of a fossil forest. And a coal seam like the Colchester coal extended from Pennsylvania all the way to Oklahoma!" And you are correct! (This is my first exposure to the modern day media... and its been an eye opener! Give them credit, they do a pretty god job overall)

    What is 'largest' about this fossil forest story is that it is the largest STUDY of a mostly entact fossil forest. Specifically one that is looking at the ecology of that forest. The largest study before this that looked at the overall ecology was about 25 hectares.. say about 1/10th of a square mile. So this study is an order of magnitude greater. The meat of the matter here is that we had an opportunity to examine a fossil forest at just a wonderfully huge scale and as a result were able to see subtle changes in the make-up of the forest as we walked the multiple miles of passageways in the mine.

    The analogy is that previous studies were like blindfolded people examining an elephant. Each person has a wonderfully detailed and accurate description of his or her patch of the elephant, and when they compare notes a decent group consensus exists as to what the elephant probably looks like... but nobody has a chance to see the whole elephant. Our study is where we get to step back from the elephant a bit and take a pretty good peak under the blindfold at the whole animal. (I wont go so far as to say we are able to clearly see the whole thing as that is stretching the analogy. The point being it is an important and exciting step forward, but not necessarily a monstrous revelation!)

    A couple of things to highlight.

    First, the part that I find the coolest about work like this. In much of geologic science (field aspects more so), geologists look at vast spreads of time in small geographic slices. For example, standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon and peering across to the other side, your eye takes in millions of years of geologic time... but you are only able to see a thin 'slice' of each unit in profile. What does a particular rock unit look like 500 feet into the side of the canyon walls? The only way to find out is to drill a hole and take a core sample.

    Geologic research, or in this case paleontological research, in an underground mine such as these coal mines is orthogonal to the norm above! At these mines, looking up at preserved trees and ferns in the mine ceiling, we were looking at single slice of time, a T(0) event, over a huge (relatively speaking) geographic area. That means that we were able to get a snapshot in time look at the forrest landscape of 300 million years ago. It's the 'worms eye' view of a fossil forest.

    I should point out that the 'discovery' of this fossil forest was a gradual process. One of the responsibilities of the Illinois State Geological Survey is to try to understand the geology of the state of Illinois... and for us in the coal section that means coworker John Nelson and I (also one of the aut

    • Thanks for the interesting post!

      and by counting the neap and spring cycles, covered it 10 feet deep in as little as four months.

      Maybe this answers my question, but did animals and insects get trapped along with the plants? It would be fascinating to have an entire ecosystem frozen in time. But if it took four months, I'd guess all the moveable entities moved out before things got buried.

      • Re:Some background information for folks. (Score:4, Informative)

        by slashdotsyncline ( 1095441 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @11:37PM (#18937191)
        Assassin bug asked nearly the same thing. We did find Eurypterid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_scorpion) pieces mixed in with the plant fossils and there is the possibility of some insect parts (legs, etc..) in some of the 'hashier' areas of the roof.

        But, as I mentioned to Assassin bug, we had a LOT of territory to cover in fairly short amount of time, so we had to concentrate on the dominant plant fossils.

        Your speculation on the moveable critters in the system 'getting the heck out of dodge' when the ground dropped out from underneath them may well be true. I would hope that at least some died and stayed put! Time (to collect data) was our enemy here.

        I should probably have mentioned this before, but we are very thankful that Peabody Energy allowed us into the mine to study and record this wonderful fossil forest. It costs them man power and time to shepard us in their mines and they have been very supportive of our efforts. Truthfully, without them extracting the coal in the first place, we would never have been able to see the steady unveiling (10 years time!) of this 300 million year old snapshot in time.
    • First, your post should be enlightened to a sticky!! (If /. had such a thing)

      Second, this entomologist would like to know if you are finding any insect fossils in your Pennsylvanian rocks? Should be some winged insects in there too, if memory serves. If so, who is taking on the task of determining them? Grimalidi at the Smithsonian is the only paleoentomologist I know of in the US these days (Maybe Poinar is still actively into research in California). I have some experience with insects in amber, but s

      • Re:Some background information for folks. (Score:4, Informative)

        by slashdotsyncline ( 1095441 ) on Monday April 30, 2007 @11:26PM (#18937123)
        An excellent question Assassin bug,

        I've had a few emails on the very topic.

        Howard Falcon-Lang and Bill Dimichele did find Eurypterid parts and pieces for certain and in some 'hashy' areas we may have found insect parts but it was hard to tell. Truthfully, the study area was so dang large that we were forced to really 'make tracks' to cover what we could, I am certain short-changing areas of interest such as your own in favor of the dominant plant fossils. I think I described the task to one reporter as trying to make a map of all the store fronts in New York city in a few days of walking the city, ending up with your 'chinatown area' ' little italy area' etc..

        A shame now in retrospect that we didn't make more of an effort to look for those other parts of the system... but oh baby did we have a lot of ground to cover!

        We do have representative samples from the mine roof that are currently in the Smithsonian collection, and hopefully Grimalidi can snag some time to give them a look over.
    • Hi Scott,

      First, thanks for one of the most informative posts I've ever seen on Slashdot. Getting an explanation from one of the scientists involved without the media-filter effect (oversimplification) or the dense text of a published paper is a treat. I'm only sorry that such a great post was buried below yet another futile debate on religious fundamentalism. People, we can mention radioisotopic dating without bringing up belief systems!

      With that out of the way, I do have a question. You mention t

      • Re:Some background information for folks. (Score:5, Informative)

        by slashdotsyncline ( 1095441 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:58AM (#18937521)
        Hi Richard!

        It's a pleasure to be posting. I have been a super-ultra-long-time-gets-the-funny-all-your-base -jokes lurker for just about forever.

        Part one of your question is asking if the catastrophic event of earthquake induced flooding be destructive to forest-floor plants. A very good question.

        To answer that I'll steal some text that will be going on the website this Friday as written by Bill DiMichele to describe the ground cover plants and follow up afterward:

        "Ground cover plants:

        Plants inferred from their growth forms to have been ground cover are not common at Riola. This suggests that the soil surface may have been inhospitable to the growth of small plants, perhaps due to flooding.

        One plant in particular, Sphenophyllum, was widespread throughout the mine but rare. Sphenophyllum (Images 51 & 52) is a sphenopsid, the same higher-level group that includes the horsetails. Like that group of plants, it has "node-internode" construction and its leaves and branches are borne in whorls. In this instance, however, the leaves are wedge-shaped, a distinctive attribute of these plants. Some Sphenophyllum species have hooks or barbs on their leaves, suggesting that they too formed thickets or tangles, and perhaps may have climbed other trees for support.

        Another potential ground cover plant, a possible small fern or seed plant, is Sphenopteris (Image 53), which is rare in the Riola mine. Sphenopteris is characterized by small fronds that have small, variously lobed pinnules."

        One reason to believe that the flooding, while catastrophic in the sense that it was sudden, may not have been particularly violent is the lack of strong linear orientation of both plants and logs, nor any preferred 'piling' of leaf litter and debris up against upright tree stumps. I personally would imagine the flooding of the forest to be in the multiple minutes category and not the 'large imposing' violent wave category. As Bill writes above, the ground surface may not have been conducive to thick luxuriant cover, but I also wonder to what degree the Sphenophyllum 'hooks and barbs' may have rooted them in place under flooding duress!

        The second part of your question asks about the importance of smaller life being critical to an understanding of forest ecology.

        You got that right! In modern forests the importance of 'smaller life' is undeniable.

        In geology we are often forced by lack of data to fill in the gaps as best as we are able to infer. Or we are required to 'complete the puzzle' with the available puzzle pieces. Along those lines, much of the picture of these 300 million year old peat mires comes about through many many many individual finds and discoveries. A few insects here... an amphibian there... ground cover plants here... massive monster of tree there... a complete coal ball collection detailing plant diversities and general ecologies here... glimpses of many of these individuals (but not all unless you've got good karma) together in one spot there... etc.. Put all the individual puzzle pieces together and a cohesive picture starts to form.

        For this particular study I feel pretty confident in saying that we are almost certainly missing big chunks of 'the little stuff'. For example, we may have seen some insect parts, but we can't be sure. Did they get swept away? Fly away? Hard to know. We are absolutely missing the entire ecological picture here and in that sense the answer to your question is a disappointing, "Nope, we don't have it all, so we don't have the honest to gosh whole picture"

        But what this study does provide is some confirmation that the picture we have theorized about... i.e. we think the Pennsylvanian peat mire ecology looks like 'X' is correct. That the subtle variations in forest ecology that you would see walking down a hiking trail in your nearby state park ("Hmm, first I saw maples, and 300 feet later I saw a few oaks, and then the maples thinned out and the oaks were dominant"

    • Aw crap... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Cervantes ( 612861 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @12:30AM (#18937425) Journal
      Aw crap, an actual expert showed up ...

      *sigh* CmdrTaco, close the doors, put up the sign, slashdot is now officially closed.

      CleverNickName, time to end the charade... everyone deserves to know you're actually William (fucking) Shatner just pretending to be WW. Please let Wil out of your basement, his mother misses him.

      Would all editors who are actually bots step forward? We have a betting pool going.

      Rob, it's time to admit you never actually got married, and are still a virgin. Yes, yes, most of us bought it with the "Will you marry me" post, but after last years "OMG Ponies!"... well, let's just say that ruined any image of you as a heterosexual male.

      Thanks everyone, for many fine years of uninformed and biased internet discussion. I know it was only a matter of time till an actual expert showed up, but still, I'm a little sad to see it all end. I'm not sure how I'll get my next chapter of the scientology books... but at least now I can safely view "the poisoned post" without forever losing my mod rights.

      So long, and thanks for all the fish.
      RIP /.
      (Netcraft confirms it)
      1997 - 2007

      (PS: Thanks for the excellent, informative post, and congratulations on your find!) :D
    • Since this find is in the middle of America, where conservative values are very strong, how do you deal with people who refute your claims about this forest being 300 millions years old, since they believe the earth is only 6000 years old? Before you brush this off as a troll, remember that nearly 50% of America's population now believes this literally.

      • Re:Some background information for folks. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by slashdotsyncline ( 1095441 ) on Tuesday May 01, 2007 @02:17AM (#18937849)
        To be honest, I really have not had much of that at all. Now, granted I live in a university town (UIUC) and am probably pretty insulated, but even heading out to various towns around the state for field work or otherwise I just really don't get much!

        Of course, my sample is my state... Illinois, which probably swings in the middle or a little blue.

        Thats not what you are asking though. You would like to know what I say to people who would prefer to believe the earth to be 6000 years old.

        Now, I have not said this to any person in particular, but one thing that comes to mind that I find a bit humorous. Coal seams are sometimes considered by the '6000' groups to be the remnants of the great flood. The idea being that a great peat swamp from an indeterminate area was torn asunder during the great flood and then covered by sediments settling out from the great flood. The evidence then being the thick sediments found on top of the coal.

        In the Illinois Basin there are 7 major coal seams (each covering a good percentage of Illinois in map view) and a total of about 80 minor coal seams all stacked (roughly speaking) vertically on top of each other with 'thick' sediment on top of each seam... So are we to infer that God was practicing his flooding technique?!? Eighty times??

        Sorry, maybe it's just my sense of humor, but I think it's woth a chuckle.

        Seriously, it seems to me that the core of the issue here is one of belief and personal belief, not of science or investigative logic. It is entirely possible to layout all the necessary proof and interconnected evidence in as grand a scheme as you desire towards proving a thing, but in the end when this discussion is broached you are no longer talking about ideas. A comment that is made against a belief is inevitably a vicous strike against the very essense of the person. In effect a personal attack... no mater what you say!

        My real answer is not a satisfying one I'm afraid. In truth I prefer not to engage anyone who wants to combatively challenge me in 'belief match' contest. I certainly respect others beliefs, no matter how incorrect I think them to be, and hope they would respect mine, but in the end it is not a battle to be won. The battle, to the extent it is a battle anyway, is in education and getting people to ask questions, wonder why, wonder how, wonder who, and what.

        • Seriously, it seems to me that the core of the issue here is one of belief and personal belief, not of science or investigative logic. It is entirely possible to layout all the necessary proof and interconnected evidence in as grand a scheme as you desire towards proving a thing, but in the end when this discussion is broached you are no longer talking about ideas. A comment that is made against a belief is inevitably a vicous strike against the very essense of the person. In effect a personal attack... no

          • I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks that Dawkins, Harris, et al. are complete douches. :D

            I've been following this thread for about 10 or so posts now, and I'd like to thank slashdotsyncline/Scott for answering our many questions. It's given me quite a few ideas for several personal projects (designing virtual worlds--I'm quite interested in making them more immersive/believable).

            And, to those ends, I have a question for syncline: Could you describe the process used to collect the fossils once th

    • Hi Scott, I'm curious about the logistics of finding important discoveries within a setting such as a working coal mine. Given the significance of this find, does the ISGS have any authority at all to ask the company to slow or stop work in sections of the mine while research is done? How accommodating is the company to your requests for access? Thanks for showing up on Slashdot! This is great. I majored in geolgoy at UBC.
    • Hello,

      I recently finished a lecture by Stephen Nowicki ( http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?c id=1500&id=1500&pc=Science%20and%20Mathematics [teach12.com] ).

      In it, he spoke about how one of the ideas about why there is coal/oil is that during the carboniferous period there were no heterotrophs at the start of the period, and none for about 60MY afterwards. Since they couldn't decompose the biological material, it simply all "pooled up".

      I find this idea spectacular and was wondering if the amount of
      • Interesting!

        I admit to this being the first time I have heard of this idea so forgive me if I don't have a reasoned answer for you. (knowing ones ignorance is a good thing!)

        I think some of the complicating factors in testing out this concept would be that there are major oil and coal deposits in the world of Jurassic (180 million to 140 million years ago) and Cretaceous (140 million to 65 million years ago) age, well after the arrival of heterotrophs.

        Now it could be that the volume of oil and coal is less
  • Will state or federal geological survey or a university take over the coal mine ? Or will mining operations continue ?

    this is an important find, even someone not affiliated with archeology, geology, prehistory and whatnot can tell that. if coal mining operation destroys stuff, it wont be good.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close