|
illuminatisos (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@RedwoodExplorer nat geo has censored it in my country!.. well, piratebay here i come..:)
TheMistressAnime (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
DONT READ THIS CAUSE IT ACTUALY WORKS. YOU WILL GET KISSED ON THE NEAREST POSSIBLE FRIDAY BY THE LOVE OF YOUR LIFE. TOMMORROW WILL BE THE BEST DAY OF YOUR LIFE.HOWEVER IF YOU DONT POST THIS COMMENT TOATLEAST THREE VIDEOS YOU WILL DIE WITHIN TWO DAYS.NOW YOU STARTED READING THIS DONT STOP.THIS IS SO SCARY.PUT THIS ON AT LEAST FIVE VIDEOS IN 143 MINUTES WHEN UR DONE PRESS F6 AND UR LOVERS NAMEWILLAPPEAR IN BIG LETTERS. THIS IS SO SCARY CAUSE IT ACTUALLY WOR
XitzpatX (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
what was the total resolution of the complete image
Gnilres (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
This is not Invader ZIM!
rephaim23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
No one really knows the exact percentage of how much old growth Douglas fir, Redwood, and Euclayptus has been burnt and logged in the past 150 years. Estimates range from 70 to as much as 99% depending on the region and species.
With those kinds of numbers, this makes old reports even more valuable than ever before. And any first hand measurements are extremely important for big tree researchers.
rephaim23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
As with the reports of giant Douglas fir, and Redwoods exceeding 400 feet in height, we must decide whether the trained foresters and lumbermen where incompetent at math, or we have to consider the real possibility such giant trees existed.
Measurements made by certified surveyors and foresters should not be laughed at and relegated to myth, especially when they are FIRST HAND accounts.
And besides, measuring a fallen tree is far more accurate than trying to measure a standing tree.
rephaim23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@abbeykroeter
Ferguson continues, "...At 5 ft. from tho ground it measures 18 ft. in diameter, and at the extreme end where it has broken in its fall, it is 3 ft. in diameter. This tree has been much burnt by fire, and I fully believe that before it fell it must have been more than 500 ft. high. As it now lies it forms a complete bridge acioss a deep ravine."
rephaim23 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@abbeykroeter
William Ferguson, Inspector of State Forests. Melbourne Botanic Garden, 21 February, 1872.
TO CLEMENT HODGKINSON, ESQ., ASSISTANT-C0MMISSI0NER OF LANDS AND SURVEY.
..."Many of the trees that have fallen through decay and by bush fires measure 350 ft. in length, and with girth in proportion. In one instance I measured with the tape line one huge specimen that lay prostrate across a tributary of the Watts, and found it to be 435 ft. from its roots to the top of the trunk."
abbeykroeter (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
@rephaim23 There was a tree in Australia bigger than that back in the 1800's
jrzy49 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I love huge wood. |
