Tallest Tree - Douglas Fir 400 feet tall to 412 feet tall.avi

[Tlducken]

@rephaim23 - At the 3:05 mark in the video there is a drawing of a wagon going through the forest, where did you find it? I really like it!

[rephaim23]

@Tlducken

Thanks. It is An 1885 engraving of a primaeval rainforest with gigantic Douglas firs and mammoth red cedar trees, Fraser River Valley, Vancouver, British Columbia. Today exterminated. I don't know the name of the artist. I found the picture at:

cathedralgrove(dot)eu/gallerie­s/WaldAktion_BC/index(dot)htm

[rephaim23]

@554687858

I would like to apologize for the comments a certain "MannySteinerBIeeky" has made towards you. I have removed them and I will block him from commenting on my videos.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Dude, thanks, but I'm not that sensitive. If Manny wants to rant let him. However, I appreciate your civility. Manny (and perhaps I) could learn from your example. Be cool.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Yeah no problem. We can all be jackasses sometimes, and I'm guilty as anyone. But many took it to whole knew levels. Also I have to admit with my research I could be dead wrong, Manny doesn't seem to make any allowance for that, and if you disagree he goes ape shit on you.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Sorry I misspelled that, I'm tired. I meant to say, Manny took it to whole "new" levels by saying stuff like "kill yourself" and other indecent words. Anyways. Take care.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Well, your site, you make the calls, if you want Manny off, so be it. You too, take care. (you never know, there might be a 400 footer out there right now, staring down at us)

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Thanks. Lots of unexplored terrain in Oregon, Washington and California maybe the magical 400 foot tree is awaiting my arrival, so I can hug it -- Then chop it down and measure its prostrate corpse with my steel tape, (I'm afraid of heights), and make a small fortune off the wood. I hope Manny isn't listening...

[554687858]

@rephaim23 When you find it, call me first.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Sure thing.

[rephaim23]

The word "impossible" is used too freely in my opinion, considering how strong a word it is. I respect the word improbable, because it doesn't pretend to know what is or is not possible.

[rephaim23]

With that being said, certainly some of these old measurements cannot all be verified, but in some reports there is rather decent documentation from independent sources. The heights reported are probably approximate, and are not rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch like modern Redwood scientists today can claim with a high level of accuracy.

But if even one fourth of the 100 reports of 300 to 400+ foot fir trees I have collected were accurate within even 25 feet, we had 400 feet trees once.

[rephaim23]

554687858 said, "You can believe old newspaper clippings and lumber magazines all you want. The tallest trees standing measure under 380 ft. None taller have ever been acturately measured. And by the way - they're all Redwoods."

How exactly do you know "None taller" have ever been measured? Unless you are a PhD in forestry or lived before 1900 in Washington, I have every reason to put some credence in earl;y lumbermen and forestry reports, and nearly zero reason to believe you.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 A PHD in any of the biological sciences isn't necessary. Just a simple understanding of comtempoary scientific explorations and discoveries. Any reputable science journal will give you far more accurate information than a publication (ie newsapaper) that has no obligation to print other than what will sell. And that applies equally to the boasts of long forgotten lumberman. Show me a science journal that backs your claim. This is how I know.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

A contemporary understanding of scientific explorations and discoveries on Douglas fir tree height shows that the tallest known living specimens are up to approx. 330 feet in height, although physical measurements of xylem design and hydraulics suggests they may be capable of reaching a maximum theoretical height of between 358 and 453 feet -- consistent with historical records (Domec et al., 2008. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(33): 12069-12074).

[554687858]

@rephaim23 You're quoting theory as though it were fact. You do realize that there is a distinct difference, don't you? Here's another little flaw in your quest for tall trees. Ever consider what happens to the tallest anything during a lighting storm? That's righ, it gets zapped. And it gets zapped often. There's a huge penalty for trying to be the biggest. Go look up the list of the 10 tallest trees (they're all Redwoods). You'll find that they are all within 5-6 feet of each other.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

What if I told you many of the top tree scientists I am aware of such as Steve Sillet, Mario Vaden, Bob Van Pelt, and Dr. Al Carder, among others have all expressed an opinion that they believe the Douglas fir has reached or exceeded 400 feet. And what if I told you that the latest major scientific paper on Douglas fir tree height also supported the claim that 400 foot trees once existed? I understand that consensus alone is not science, but it is certainly interesting.

[rephaim23]

@rephaim23

I should correct that statement: Mario Vaden is an arborist. But I consider his work and scientific knowledge and experience to be of great importance.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Uh dude, Your hero Mario is a landscape contractor, nothing more..If you wish to bandy names about, try my cousin, Kenneth Meyer. He's a past president of the American Arboretum society and has lectured at major universities accross the Unioted States. He has also levctured in China. So don't waste your time naming gardeners as a source of 'great importance'. Your problem is you're treating this as though it were of scientific value when it's nothing more than your fantasy.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

You know, you very well could be correct. It may well be that no Douglas fir ever exceeded 400 feet in height, and that all the reports were describing felled trees which broke apart on impact giving an inflated number by oh a dozen or two dozen feet perhaps. I contend this is perfectly possible. But lumbermen were generally fairly decent at measuring trees to within 10 or 20 ft of standing heght. I think my fantasy is also shared by the scientists/arborists I mentioned.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Those inflated figures are more likely a product of competition between the people doing the cutting. As to the height of trees relative to their distance between each other, I've found just the opposite - at least in the county in which I live (San Mateo). Here, the true giants (almost entirely logged ou) were spaced dozens of feet apart. Often, 50' -100' and more. These are redwoods of course. Further, they mostly occured in groves with large swaths of lesser trees between them.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Sounds quite reasonable.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

That is cool to hear about Mr. Kenneth Meyer, and I would be interested in his view of Douglas fir in the 350 to 400+ foot range.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 His view is as mine - verifiable records speak for themselves. He doesn't dispute the possibility of taller ones (nor do I) having existed. But as one who is e

immersed in the subject, he prefers hard data as opposed to hearsay evidence. And the data available says perhaps, but not likely.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Ok. Thanks for your input.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 First off, if you expect to be taken seriously as a 'researcher', then I suggest you use the proper noun nomenclature. Those 'tree scientists' you refer to would prefer you use the term Dendrologist. Dendrology is the study of trees and is, of course, a branch of biology. As to their beliefs and opinions - fine- it's just that - a belief or opinion. Everybody's entitled to them. You tend to believe whatever supports your fantasy. I stand by the verifiable documented facts.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Ok. Sure. 

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@giochinina - they're not dangerous, only dangerously insane people ever claim lies like that.

you don't need large trees for hardly anything, and if you do need say support beams for a building then there are fast growing species suitable for that - you don't use old trees.

and for heating?! you never fell entire trees for heating. the global environment can't support that anymore.

& any chainsaw type of scum have to be killed, that is hell-on-Earth energy and noise.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

Mr Giochinina probably works for weyerhaeuser, or it's Russian equivalent. I mean, these are the people who claim to be "conservatives" yet some of them would gladly log the remaining unprotected Redwood groves in California, reducing the 4% that remain to less than 2%. I believe logging is a necessary industry, but the excuse that "the trees are old and dangerous" was exactly the argument the mayor of Seattle used when he cut down the last 400 ft trees in Ravenna park.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - yeah he sounds like an evil shill from the manner of his comment wordings, is he Russian, they are indeed murdering a lot of ancient forests there just now too.

i wouldn't agree the logging industry is ok, have you heard of Victor Schauberger? true a lot of forest was already lost, mostly elsewhere like in the UK by his time, but the industry as it is today is based around ignoring people like him that knew what they were talking about.

[rephaim23]

Well, I believe if houses are going to be built, and cities expand, careful logging of young to mature forested lands, 50 to 150 year old trees, is sort of a fact of life. It's the old trees, those over 200 years old that should not be touched. Obviously the forest industry today is based off profit, just like it was 100 years ago. They want the fine quality spruce and fir, the close grain stuff -- even if 99% of it has already be logged, (like the fir on Vancouver Island). It is criminal.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - once a house is built it should be to last, humans are the only species whose population numbers appear to increase only - the whole overpopulation thing is a bit bogus as normally deaths would even the numbers out so they don't really increase overall at all.

so someones born are meant to inherit the house of their family, things are just messed up & it's lead to lots more being built - a house shouldn't be an investment, just a house.

plus they'll have to switch to low impact.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

In Europe and North America my generation (20's) are not having as many children as their parents, and the elder population is outnumbering the children born. This means the net result will be a total of negative population growth. In places like China and India, as they become more modern they will also experience lower birth rate, which means by the 22nd century world population will likely have peaked.

Yes, a house should last 100 years. America has many vacant homes.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

Ravenna park was the last of the "big tree" parks in Seattle that contained really old fir and cedar. They were 10 to 14 feet thick, and 250 to 400 feet high. The owner, Mr. W. Beck sold the property to the city of Seattle around 1908, thinking the city would take care of the park. By 1926 all of the giant trees were completely cut down, allegedly because they were "diseased." The mayor and his stooges made personal profits off the wood. Callous Philistines.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - yeah they're really fucking evil, the forestry commission etc here makes up lies too so they can murder trees.

eg, recently i was up near Inverness and got slightly lost looking for this village i was meant to be at, i did find some nice out of the way places because of that though - one was under 'protection' from the forestry here - and it contained at least 3 absolutely huge trunks of softwood pines, recently-ish murdered, no indication of any disease in the rings etc.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

The forestry commission is a lobby agency for lumbermen. What they won't tell you is that old time logging, like the fleet whalers of the 1860's are antiquated jobs which hold no future -- they are bust. You can't pretend that there is an endless bounty of forest, as if it was the 19th century hay day of Paul Bunyon. Trees that size pretty much went the way of the Dinosaur, and the Steam donkey. It will take hundreds of years to see forest like that again, if at all.

[554687858]

This is nothing but bullshit. If that guy thinks his 'authoritive' voice is is the last word he's crazy. The tallest tress ever accurately measured range in height from 370 ft. to 380' ft. The problem being that they can't move water and nutrients any higher (yeah, I know, Coast Redwoods get a large proportion of their water from the atmosphere - aka fog, but the system max'es out around 375 ft.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Well, I suggest you read the works of Dr. A. C. Carder, Bob Van Pelt, and the scientific estimates of potential tree height for Redwoods: Nature 428, 851-854 (22 April 2004 )and Douglas fir: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105(33): 12069-12074 (2008). In the latter scientific paper, the historical reports of Douglas fir were complimentary anecdotes for the scientists in their study.

To simply ignore historical reports of trees exceeding 380 feet would be ignorant.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Aren't you the same guy who thinks that humans used to be 12 ft tall? What's with you dude? Are you short and have a complex about it? Or do you just think really tall things are cool? I'll bet you're in your early twenties - at best. I'm right, aren't I?

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Yes that's me. I think really tall things are cool.

[554687858]

@MannySteinerBIeeky Son, If you had any idea at all as to how evolution works, you'd realize the impossibility of your claim. Diet was the game-changer in the evolution of home-sapiens. As our diet improved, we grew larger both physically and mentally. Would it really make any sense to think that with an improved diet, we would diminished in size? C'mon, use your head. 12 foot homo-sapiens would have been the center piece of archaeology. It's not something you can sweep under the rug.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Hello, your points are well taken. People seem to be taller today than in past ages with some exceptions; Fossil bones of archaic humans who commonly reached 7 feet tall have been found in South Africa and are at the University of Witwatersrand, according to Prof. Lee R. Berger. I have not seen hard evidence that homo sapiens reached 12 feet, but some fossil bones documented in peer review literature give approx. height estimates of 10 to 11.5 feet. That is significant.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 7 Feet? Of course.There are African tribes whose average height exceeds 6 feet with 7 feet being not that uncommom. 12 feet though, is another story. We're talking an additional 5 feet and frankly, it's too ludicrious to debate. I suggest you conduct your 'research' in such a manner that newspapers aren't your main source of pertinent information. You'll find very few science-based facts in such publications. That's not their intent. Try actual science - it's far more fasinating.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

The late Dr. Charles Humberd studied human giants all is life, and in 1936 was convinced no human being ever exceeded 7 feet 10 inches high. In 1940 he was proved wrong, the 8 feet 11 inch Robert Wadlow was the tallest man in modern medical history. 12 feet is certainly a hard pill to swallow at first, but I would never make the mistake of saying it is impossible. Again, impossible is a strong word, and I would saying no subject is too ludicrous to debate. Debate is good.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Well that's strange indeed. You saying that 12 feet is a hard pill to swallow - because earlier, on another site, you were willing to accept the possibility of 15 - 20 footers. Further, you were inferring that these 12 footers were not an anomaly but a commonality. It would appear that now you have changed course and are presenting them as anomalies - something that makes a little more sense.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

As a whole, I have changed course, and do think they represent anomalies of human size, even if they were genetic i.e. a tribe or group. Honestly, gigantism by default seems to be an exceptional thing, whether we are talking tall trees or tall people/animals. I do accept the possibility of a 15 - 20 foot tall human/hominid, unlikely as it may be.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

I suggest you watch my video presentation "Douglas fir: America's tallest tree?." It is fairly half ass produced and hard to listen to what I am saying because I have laundry going in the background, but I present some of the books which were launched me into my research efforts of the tallest fir trees.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - wt fuck are you talking about? your kind don't even reply to what anyone actually writes. k.y.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

Oh, I think maybe your talking about someone else. We both agree there were bigger trees in the past.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - oh there were definitely way bigger trees all over the whole planet before, many species. yes.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

Yeah, who knows there may well have been trees the size of the tree in Avatar. Like 1,000 feet tall or somethin. If gravity was half or a fourth as strong as it is today, plus more C02 in the atmosphere who knows what the limits really are for animals and plants.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - they'd get bigger under these current conditions, they just don't get the chance to a. grow and b. 'evolve' newer species to replace the ones that were cut down, made extinct

re. a. - lots of current trees would grow much bigger and for longer, they are just not left to nature to be able to do so. lots of tree planting does stupid practices when they plant trees, and many lose their initial correct starting off from being forced to grow from one main trunk.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 OK look, I know I'm butting in here and I will make this my last intrusion into your conversation with little Manny. Gravity is a constant in physics - period. It's related to mass. And the only way it changes - ever - is if mass is added or removed. It's not like the atmosphere where it can evolve over time. And it was exactly the same when life started on this planet as it is now.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

It appears that gravity has been more or less the same on earth today as it was in the recent and far distant past, assuming the earth has had the same approximate mass for the past billion years. If the earth had noticeably less mass in the past, this may have effected its gravity.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

There was a report I got from the USFS Range experiment station, Portland, OR back in October. It was titled "Red Fir in the Northwest" 1899 or 1900 by E.T. Allen." Edward Tyson Allen was one of the US Forest Service's early foresters who worked under Gifford Pinchot. His 1899 -1900 report on the Red fir region of Washington page 4 - 5 he describes how the red fir often grew in dense forests 300 feet high, with specimens sometimes 350 feet tall and even 380 feet.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 This I'm in agreemebnt with.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

This 380 foot tree is mentioned in greater detail in a letter from E.T. Allen to R.H. McKee, Seattle, Apr. 3, 1924 - which Dr. Al Carder documents in his book Forest Giants, Past and Present, 1995 pg. 170. The tree was measured on the ground by steel tape by Allen and his survey team in 1899 5 miles from the town of Ashford, Wa. near the Nisqually river. A small portion of its top was missing.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Again, I'm in agreement. Most, (if not all) the giants are missing their tops due to lighting strikes..Redwood creek is in northern California and has some of the true giants. They're located in secluded canyons and protected from the elements. Their ages are in excess of 2000 years. In other words, it isn't likey you'll find better growing conditions or environment and still they are under 380'. I still don't understand why you don't find a 380' tree astounding. It is, you know.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

A 380 foot tree is very impressive. And honestly at that height it would be hard to tell the difference between a 380 and 400 ft tree. After 350 ft you're lucky if you can see the tops in a dense forest.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

To my knowledge, finding a single Douglas-fir tree today that is over 300 feet tall is not easy. The fact that allen reported in his survey whole forests of trees that high, and higher suggests to me one should treat stories of 400 foot tees with an open mind at the very least.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 Try British Colombia. There I think you'll find your 300 plus Doug. firs - providing they haven't logged them all out yet. Sadly, Canada is no better than us in managing their forests.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Not too many 300+ ft Douglas fir are existent, there are indeed some, but it is estimated that 95% (Ken Wu's estimate) or more of the old growth firs on the south side of Vancouver Island have been been logged. Old lumber reports speak of occasional firs 325 to 400 feet tall on the island 60 to 120 years ago.

[554687858]

@MannySteinerBIeeky Rephaim's right, Manny. I'm the one you want. What seems to be the problem?

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@554687858 - how are you 'the one i want'? what does that fag shit mean?! as far as i recall here, i agree with the uploader, that is where our discussion had finished at last time i was here. we'd agreed that trees can grow way bigger than they tend to, and that in the past trees much larger than any recorded thesedays existed. if he's changed his mind about that, i haven't. and i've thought so known so all along.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

I think Mr. 554687858 is clearly a troll. It's possible some old loggers reports were estimates that may have been within 10 or 20 feet of a tree's height, but lumbermen knew how to measure trees in accurate lengths to take to the mills on train cars. I gave Mr. 554687858 multiple references to books, and the latest science papers on Douglas fir tree height, and even reports from Foresters. He seems to think the few big trees today are the tallest ever.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 A troll? Perhaps. I just don't see the need to exaggerate the dimensions of something that is already remarkable in size. If you ever stood next to a 380 tree, you'd know what I mean. There's simply no need to embellish it's stature. Mostly, people lucky enough to experience this just stand there speechless - it's rather overwhelming. Probably safe to say that it borders on a religious experience - and rightly so - if there's a god, then this is his best work.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

I don't think I'm exaggerating anything, I simply pick some of the most extraordinary reports and present them. I have 120 reports of fallen, or otherwise measured reports of Douglas fir over 300 to 400+ feet tall felled mostly between 1880 and 1930 as reported by lumbermen, foresters, and botanists. Perhaps the best documented giant Douglas fir was the great tree that stood near Mineral, Wa. estimated to have stood between 385 and 393 feet tall before it fell in 1929.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Old time tree author Dr. A.C. Carder who is 101 years old, contacted 9 persons who viewed and or measured the tree near Mineral, Wa. The most credible authority who measured the tree's standing bole was Dr. Richard E. McArdle, who later became chief of the USFS. Leo Isaac commented that the tree measured 385 ft, although earlier height estimates put it at 393 ft, including the wind blown top which measured 160-168 ft. There was also a 380+ ft fir measured by E.T. Allen.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

In addition to this info, I gave Mr. 554687858 a reference to a news paper which published my research into a Douglas fir which was the tallest tree of any species ever recorded in North America. The columnist and I contacted the land owner on whose property the tree was felled some 114 years previous, and we even found a photo of the tree from 1897 which recorded the height, age, and board feet of the tree on a placard.

Yet, he calls this "fantasy."

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - he sounds like a wacko then....i wondered about his insane phrasing to me, 'i'm the one you want' - like he thinks he's in Grease the musical...

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

lol. yeah.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

I agree, a 12 feet tall human is not something that can easily be swept under the rug. That is why I find news reports of such discoveries worthy of investigation. The New York Times and Washington post reported on dozens of reputed 7 to 12 feet tall human remains between 1850 and 1950. Many of these may be able to be explained away as exaggeration or hearsay, but others such as the Castelnau giant have scientific substance to them and were reported on at the time.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

The Seattle Times recently ran a rather intriguing story based on my research concerning giant Douglas firs felled in the Puget sound. The Whatcom museum has one or more photographs of the cross section of the Nooksack giant, with a placard clearly listing the dimensions of the tree. I continually find references to 300 to 400+ foot tall trees in old news paper clippings, historical reports, and lumber magazines. I suppose they were all bullshitting around in the woods...?

[554687858]

@rephaim23 You can believe old newspaper clippings and lumber magazines all you want. The tallest trees standing measure under 380 ft. None taller have ever been acturately measured. And by the way - they're all Redwoods.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

You believe trees cannot exceed 380, and I believe they may have reached 480. How about we meet half way and shake on 430 feet?

[554687858]

@rephaim23 No.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Alright. Your loss.

[mat31new]

@554687858 man, you just don't like big things.

[rephaim23]

@mat31new

Well apparently, the idea of 400 foot fir trees scares him.

[554687858]

@mat31new No, i just don't like big lies. And I don't like newspapers being quoted as though they were the gospel - they're not. Like I told your friend, show me a scientific journel that backs up the claim of documented evidence of trees exceeding 400 feet (or for that matter, 12 foot homo-sapiens). Any serious researcher would never use a newspaper as his primary source. And he damn sure wouldn't be quoting them - that would be nothing more than vocational suicide.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

And I don't like it when people call legitimate research lies without looking up the references. You don't like newspapers being quoted as gospel, fair enough -- that is a valid point. I cannot show you a scientific journal backing up the claim for a 12 foot tall human, but I can give you a reference to a science journal which documented human bones which were estimated to belong to a man 11.5 feet tall: La Nature Vol. 18, issue 888 pg. 11-12. I made a video about it.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

I consider myself a serious researcher with an interest in the sensational. Apparently my amateur research efforts have proved fruitful enough for a Seattle Times news paper columnists to call me up and track down photographs of a reputed 465 feet tall fir tree, and contact the land owner on which the tree was felled some 114 years ago. My experience is that news paper stories often lead to primary sources, and are very valuable -- extremely valuable.

[554687858]

@rephaim23 That is all well and good, however,putting that much faith and credence in a newpaper is foolhardy and will limit your growth as a researcher to amatuire status. And the fact that the newpaper you mentioned was willing to confer with you on this subject only proves what I've been telling you - they're in the biusiness of selling papers - not factual stories - otherwise, the paper would have gone to a university and interviewed someone educated in the biological sciences.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Yes, I am quite prepared to stay at amateur status as a researcher, I mean, I don't have much to gain or lose from my endeavors. Maybe there never were 400 foot tall trees, and all trees ever have stood neatly below 379.5 feet tall, because that is the tallest recognized tree today by a select number of big tree enthusiasts. Out of the millions of trees which have stood and died on this planet, you do realize the idiocy of that do you? 379.5 feet, the magical limit.

[rephaim23]

@rephaim23

Additionally, Mr. Ron Judd, columnist of the Seattle Times obtained a copy of an 1897 photograph from the Whatcom Co. Museum which showed a cross section of the tree when it was displayed at the city of New Whatcom (present Bellingham) at Railroad Avenue and Holly Street. The placard on the tree section clrearly reads the dimensions of the tree: "465 FT tall, 33 ft 11 in circ. 480 years according to ring count." Foolhardy? Maybe. Interesting for certain.

[rephaim23]

@554687858

Mr. Ron Judd of the Seattle Times contacted me after seeing my amateur videos on Douglas fir tree height. He expressed a certain interest in writing a story about the giant fir 465 ft tall felled in Whatcom, Co. in 1897. He and I both contacted a certain Mr. Devine of Maple Falls, Wa who owns the property on which the tree was reportedly felled. Mr. Devine was quite aware of the story of the giant tree and even had identified the stump before it washed away in 2003.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@giochinina - how can you claim you even like nature if you fucking destroy it?! what did you do with the wood that you couldn't do with wood from responsible types of agroforestry?

eg to make beams, furniture etc - you can use sucklers, you don't even need to take the main trunk/s from much newer trees to make required things is what i mean, so why would anyone need to kill even older trees and take the whole lot?

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

there used to be loads more species as big and bigger, all over the world, remember that many trees thesedays don't get the chance to even grow in their proper shapes - & that also shortens their lifespans, so they don't get a chance to exist long enough to grow to their full sizes either.

plus they rarely let them aggreagte either, some really large trees were / are many trees.

(btw i don't mean any of this in a 'that's not really the biggest tree' kind of way)

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

Your absolutely correct. There are records of Redwood trees which were 424 feet tall, and rumors of 450 footers that once used to grew near the Bull Creek Flats before the 1870's. Several forms of Eucalyptus once reached 400 to 500 feet high, and 20 feet thick near Melbourne before 1900. Now days, the tallest trees in Australia are like 250 feet -- half as tall as they once grew. The sad truth is, even our text books have forgotten how big the trees of the world once grew.

[rephaim23]

@MannySteinerBIeeky

So I think not only did the Douglas fir exceed 400 feet, but the Redwoods, Spruces, Eucalyptus, and probably other species once also. 96% of the old growth Redwoods have been logged, 99% of the Douglas fir in Vancouver Island, and B.C., 95% of the biggest giants in Washington and Oregon, and 99% of the old growth Eucalyptus in southern Australia. It's amazing any thing old stands at all.

[MannySteinerBIeeky]

@rephaim23 - yeah i know, i'm amazed i even exist in this mess, with all its enforcing of hell-on-Earth from things like logging.

[Tricyklist]

Do we ever have the right to fell (for profit) that which we did not (and could not have) planted? Who owns the life of a great tree that they may take that life for mere money? Many great trees shattered on being felled. Rendering the timber worthless. It's millennia-long life was taken for nothing but man's vanity and endless greed.

[rephaim23]

@Tricyklist

Yeah, felling a tree over 300 and 400 feet required skill. one mistake and the thing would fracture at the core. The lumbermen often generally used only the lower half of a big Douglas fir, the part where there were no branches was sold as market board feet because it was free from knots, and was also the thickest part of the trunk with the best quality wood.

The 415 ft Lynn Valley tree had to be blown into sections with dynamite before transportation to the Moodyville mill.

[rephaim23]

@giochinina

Wow. 4 meter diameter cotton tree. This is big. Yes it is sad to see the trees die, but the tall 100-140 meter trees are now been gone for 100 years. No use in crying over dead trees. They still find trees of 90-100 meter in Oregon today, but this is rare. 90% of the tallest and fattest fir and spruce are gone.

They British use the Douglas fir for ships masts in the 19th century! They can have single log of wood 50 or 75 meters! They used to be as high as the Redwoods.

[exbf22]

i think i wanna plant one of these in my yard. :)

[rephaim23]

@exbf22

Cool. If you do, remember if there's a wind storm it will crush 5 houses.

[waves1of9terror]

This makes me so angry how they cut down so many of ancient trees like these in nw

[rephaim23]

@waves1of9terror

I suppose they had to build their fancy log cabins.

[rephaim23]

I Just grabbed them from the net, after 2 years of research. I have a lot more data on the Doug fir claims of 300- to 400. I just wanted to report the tallest reports of 400 and up.

[cLIMBERMAN420]

Incredible photo collection! Where do you find these photos?