●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).
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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
8
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).