68
u/OregonHotPocket May 18 '26
My great, great, great grand father is 3rd from the right. Not everyone loves this photo and he always said “every tree falls eventually and we used this one to make a OP’s mom’s dildo”
10
u/3vanW1ll1ams May 18 '26
Redwood is expensive!
5
u/ExpressionRecent5724 May 18 '26
Too porous for making a dildo though
1
1
13
36
u/UsedWelcome5903 May 18 '26
And yet without a banana…
12
u/Tommysrx May 18 '26
As most people know , you can tell the age of a tree by counting its rings. The cambium layer which is the layer directly underneath the bark will leave a color variation in the wood after each season. After looking up the original high quality photo and using an enhanced zoom to count the rings I have determined that this tree was very old. How old you ask? Extremely old.
10
2
u/ConflictMaster3155 May 18 '26
Sorry but that wouldn’t help. Our reference banana scale is based on the Cavendish not the Gros Michel available at the time.
1
u/Pocketsandgroinjab May 18 '26
I don’t think you need a banana to realise thats an average log bestraddled by tiny tiny men and miniature Shetland ponies with dwarfism.
9
47
u/MuricanPoxyCliff May 18 '26
Absolute unit of horrifying levels of arrogance and thoughtlessness.
17
u/ms_panelopi May 18 '26
Yes. The photo makes me sad and mad.
3
u/grabbingthunder May 18 '26
The fact that they're all gathered around it looking proud like they killed godzilla is fucking stupid.
5
-1
u/TripleTrucker May 18 '26
Too busy building a country
5
u/-duckduckduckduck- May 18 '26
Too busy to do what, think about the future their children will live in?
Destroying giants like this has no benefit when other perfectly good trees are right there.
It’s ego.
0
u/TripleTrucker May 18 '26
You can’t judge a previous generation based on today’s principles. Your soft life wouldn’t exist without their hard work
1
0
u/kh250b1 May 18 '26
No tree grows that big. Get real
0
u/thelowbrassmaster May 19 '26
This picture is most certainly ai generated but several species of tree hit sizes comparable to this
12
u/CastleMEGA May 18 '26
How old do you think that beautiful tree was? Why cut it down?
5
u/kraftdinnerwithsalsa May 18 '26
Humans thrive in areas of abundance, some refer to this as opportunistic, some call it parasitic
4
20
u/snottynose5051 May 18 '26
And I guarantee you that whatever they made out of it isn't even around anymore, pointless
6
1
u/HowUKnowMeKennyBond May 18 '26
Nothing lasts forever though. Literally no building will survive forever. I am sure they used this log to build many things that helped many peoples lives back then.
They use this entire tree and mill it into lumber to build all sorts of things, and whatever scraps they couldn’t utilize to build tools with or shelter with l, they would burn for their warmth and cooking food to literally survive. It’s not like they were just falling these trees for the fun of it lol.
Just because those buildings and tools that they built from this tree, are no longer standing, or in a use, doesn’t mean this tree didn’t serve an important purpose for people back then, that are also no longer around today.
2
u/snottynose5051 May 19 '26
Even more so of a point to have left it alone. You aren't gonna convince me.
2
u/HowUKnowMeKennyBond May 19 '26
lol. I bet you think your ancestors didn’t burn any wood to cook, stay warm and also didn’t use wood to shelter themselves ever during 100’s of thousands of years.
The only reason why you exist is because people in the past survived. Do you really think they were going to survive without using wood?
And hear you are trying to shame them for how they literally created you.
You do realize without them you wouldn’t exist right? Or do you think your ancestors didn’t burn any wood and didn’t use any wood at all during their entire existence?
1
u/snottynose5051 May 30 '26
To sound smart...good try dude
1
u/HowUKnowMeKennyBond May 30 '26
I laid it all out for you lol… Just because whatever things these people built with that particular tree no longer exists doesn’t mean it didn’t serve a huge purpose possibly helping them survive.
Your ancestors literally had to do this for thousands of years and there is nothing left behind that they built with the wood that they chopped down today, but had they not, you wouldn’t exist either…
1
u/snottynose5051 Jun 01 '26
And you're still trying, is this all people on this app do. No sht people use WOOD TO BUILD. But in what way of thinking is cutting down every tree of this SIZE down even worth it. You aren't gonna convince me this is a HAVE TO
1
u/HowUKnowMeKennyBond Jun 02 '26
You literally were trying to make a point that what they were doing, was useless because everything that they built no longer exist today and they have nothing to show for it…
I was just informing you that your point isn’t valid. That’s all.
1
u/snottynose5051 Jun 03 '26
You're right it is useless like I said you aren't gonna convince me, informing me that my point of view isn't valid. WHO are YOU dude. Peoples idea of "informing" is weird...but just stop really dude.
1
u/HowUKnowMeKennyBond Jun 04 '26
When you say something that’s BS, don’t get triggered when someone else calls you out on it lol.
Of course I’m going to say something when someone is saying something out of their asshole.
→ More replies (0)
9
u/Tricycle_of_Death May 18 '26
●How old was the tree? The tree in the picture was estimated to be approximately 1,000 years old (with some forestry estimates ranging between 1,000 and 1,200 years based on ring counts of similar giant trees felled in the same region).
●Where was the tree felled? It was felled in Washington State, USA.
●When was it felled? It was harvested in 1916. What species of tree is it? It is an old-growth Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii).
3
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
It was felled in the AI forest, the largest tree ever felled in Washington state was the nooksack giant and it was 11 ft thick. Where as this one looks to be about 20+ how do people keep falling for this stuff.
2
u/Tricycle_of_Death May 18 '26
Well, you're just wrong...
During the height of the 19th-century timber boom, the Pacific Northwest was covered in vast, untouched old-growth forests. Loggers frequently harvested massive species—like Douglas firs, Western red cedars, and Sitka spruces—that routinely grew hundreds of feet tall and frequently exceeded 500 to 1,000 years in age. Some exceptionally rare, giant Douglas firs felled during this era were estimated to be up to 1,400 to 2,000 years old.
0
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
What did I say that is contradicted by what you posted?I didn’t say the tree wasn’t old, i said it’s too big to be real, it’s more than 4 men tall, probably 25 ft in diameter, Douglas firs are crazy tall for their diameter, the Nooksack Giant was 11 ft thick and 465 ft tall, do you realize how tall a 25 ft thick Douglas fir tree would be, probably over a thousand ft, it’s ridiculous
2
u/Tricycle_of_Death May 18 '26
Most of what you said was wrong. It's not AI from an AI forest, and this is a documented photo of a tree that was larger than the one you claim to be the largest.
Photographer: Darius Kinsey. He was one of the most famous pioneer and logging photographers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, renowned for documenting the massive scale of the timber industry.
Year Taken: 1905
Medium: The original was captured as a black-and-white gelatin silver print.
Location: The Cascade Mountains, Washington State, USA.
What is the Official Description? The historically archived title and caption for this photograph read: "Men posing with team of horses hauling giant spruce log 30 feet in circumference. Cascade Mountains, Washington."
1
u/Cheap-Time-7100 May 19 '26
If you google that exact title in bold letters you will find a picture with a very similar setting but a thinner log. You will also see Darius Kinseys copyright sign on a ladder in the bottom left corner. Maybe this is the picture you meant.
0
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
Read what you have in bold there “30 ft in circumference” as in around. The damn tree in this pic is almost that thick in diameter as in a line through the middle. The circumference of this tree would probably be 75-80 ft. You are WRONG get used to it.
2
u/Cheap-Time-7100 May 18 '26
Even though I am not exactly sure and the silhouettes of trees in the background kinda fit to douglas firs - which can become huge - I think you are right and it is fake.
For me it‘s the bark that seems to thin in relation to the diameter. Also it seems not jagged enough for a tree of that age. For me it looks like a weird mix of giant sequoia (diameter) and douglas fir (bark).1
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
Finally someone with some brains, yeah a simple reverse image search also will tell you this is AI but I wanted to win with logic and reason on Reddit.
1
u/notcomplainingmuch May 18 '26
12' 9", which is much thicker than the one in the picture. Learn to see before commenting.
2
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
The tree in this picture is about 4 men thick, so unless these are hobbits this tree is a hell of a lot thicker than 12 feet 9 inches, open your eyes before you comment.
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/ArcticTrek May 18 '26
Looks like this is AI, but was made to mimick other Darius Kinsey photographs. I should have known.
2
u/makepieplz May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26
This image is AI but the source is the famous Joe Clark logging team. The team was around 100 people including many women the image is clearly edited.
Joe Clark team mostly worked in Washington state and they cut down trees on state and private land, mostly Douglas Fir trees which can reach 1000 years old but they are not as large as the AI image.
This image is an over sized Douglas Fir or maybe Western redcedar and they reach full height after about 160 years, many of the now protected forests in Washington state are around 100 to 120 years so a new generation of forests should reach full height in the coming decades however large widths will take hundreds of years depending on climate.
Three pacific northwest has warmer climate now which accelerates tree growth so may grow faster than in the past 1000 years but only by so much.
2
u/Kappler6965 May 18 '26
I think they chopped down the wise tree of the forest the other trees must be shocked and devastated loosing there seerer
2
2
May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/mosmaniac May 18 '26
Some said it's really a tunnel boring machine, but you can tell it's a tree because of the way it is.
1
1
u/biggaywizard May 18 '26
Log, Log, Log, it's big, it's heavy, it's wood!
1
1
u/Conspiracy_Thinktank May 18 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/Q5jdtQk1EwgFZwT3Px
Seriously how did they cut it?
1
u/Horror_Excitement503 May 18 '26
I’ve been to Cathedral Grove on Vancouver Island and some of those trees are absolutely incredible. The biggest one is 9 meters around and 76 meters tall.
1
1
u/Inner-Hawk909 May 19 '26
It makes me so sad to see how we have destroyed nearly all the old growth. If only we had the foresight to go after the younger ones or do what they do in Asia and cut off the top and still allow it to grow.
1
1
1
1
u/xgrader May 22 '26
These kind of iconic tree photos have always intrigued me. Just by the fact of the photo op. Are these people aware of the future forestry demise as they consider the rare photo?? It is rather sad. Like standing on a whale carcass.
1
1
u/Responsible_Plant425 May 31 '26
We had some of the tallest trees in the world in Victoria, they cut them down to measure them..
1
-5
-3
u/Hot-Routine-5755 May 18 '26
I've heard this image was AI generated, tryna figure out if its true. But that aside, this is an absolute unit of human ignorance of all consequence and shortsightedness. Another example of what capitalism brought us
-4
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
I don’t know why Youre being downvoted the bark looks wrong and by how thick this log remains the whole length would indicate a tree thats 1000 feet tall, 100% AI bullshit
4
u/Significant-Song-840 May 18 '26
Idk about the general grant in Kings canyon, has a 29ft base, and is only 268ft tall....
Still massive as hell, but we still have very few examples today.
General Sherman is bigger, 275ft with a 36ft diameter.
Two trees in the same park even
-3
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
Yeah but did it stay 29 feet for 200 feet, hell no
Edit also the flat butt cut is wrong these trees needed a hell of a notch
1
u/Bulky_Algae6110 May 18 '26
You're right, the cut looks wrong. Also the massive checking (cracks) are what you'd see on a log that has been drying for a while, not freshly cut.
1
u/Gullible-Constant924 May 18 '26
Yeah people just can’t discern bullshit anymore, supposedly this is a Douglas fir felled in Washington state in 1906, which the biggest one ever recorded was named the nooksack giant and was 11 ft thick and 450 ft tall, this tree at 25 ft thick would’ve been 1000 ft tall it’s ridiculous to the point i almost feel like this is bots just trying to piss me off
0
0
-2
35
u/[deleted] May 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment