It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

There are no forests on earth

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
More forest land in the US than 100 years ago but I think you wanted the click bait numbers.



Hmm...

SOURCE



edit on 8-8-2016 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING,there are lots of questings who did it and where did all that material go being the obvous ones.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

So you tell me the forest and woods surrounding my town, that´s even giving credit to the fact we live so far in the trees with it´s name. And again -old man saying- "the russians just did not find us".

You want to tell me that this is all just some matrix thingy? So going by that logic, nothing is.
Nothing exists.

If your argument is that there are no forests in "there are no such huge trees", the reason is, that by far not everywhere could those grow so huge. The factors are such as erosion, nutrients in soil, water, weather etc. We have some trees where two grown man could not touch their hands while hugging it. Most of those trees are in valeys, because that´s where the nutrients go and also the soil is thicker in valeys.

Trees don´t grow forever, they die eventually when their roots are too old. The watertable also plays a big role in that.
A thumb measure would be 1.5 times the height is the actual root depth. Maybe it´s more clear now.

edit on 8-8-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
As you say a few will spend over an hour, you could tell us also, where did the wood go?

Sorry for double post but this would drown otherwhise and you posted after I did.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

No what he is saying is what is on earth now whilst we may consider it thick,dense,beautiful whatever would of once been called undergrowth



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Half of the worlds wildlife has been wiped out since 1970 according to the WWF so enjoy your animals whilst you can



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum
See, why should I watch a video if the information it´s giving me is old but presented in blatant click bait style?

and needs a disclaimer that tells me to believe it -"others simply lie" .
edit on 8-8-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

They are not mine.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

It has a half smart title but it does present a heck of a lot more than just this concept it also talks about past mining on earth and many other things and does some interesting lateral thinking so here is your rule of thumb if you are a lateral thinker you will enjoy it if you are a staunch defender of official science and official history it will probably give you an anneurysm.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Soooo, there's not a forest where I take my kids for nature walks? I'm just imagining the trees and they're not actually there?

I'm calling delusional & uneducated on the claim. All species of trees have the capability of producing an extremely tall/large/old tree (a superlative) Not all species of tree have these as a standard trait unless you're a Redwood, Giant Sequoia, Mountain Ash, for example. Kind of like humans with extreme height or age. We can churn 'em out at 7+ feet tall, and can hit the 120's (Jeanne Calment) but it doesn't mean these are particularly standard for the species. Shorter and younger people does not equal no humans. Hence, this does not mean there are no friggin' forests left.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

The 1800's was not very environmentally friendly was it 30-60 million buffalo as well as those forests



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I am sorry if the title offends your sensabilities you have to watch it to see the explanation,then come back and argue that he is delusional and uneducated.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Nyiah

I am sorry if the title offends your sensabilities you have to watch it to see the explanation,then come back and argue that he is delusional and uneducated.

"Do you agree wiz me?" No, dude, I don't. I want the 5 minutes back I wasted watching you. You're not getting an additional hour and 15.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

This.

Not all trees are equal.

And trees require SPACE to grow too. Get too many trees in one place trying to grow too close together and they become stunted.

In the past, nature took care of it with fire and other natural forces.

Out here where I live, we have areas that we've cleared, areas where we cleared the undergrowth, and thinned the trees out (those trees have grown huge), and areas that we've left untouched (thick over growth, major fire hazard, only a few big trees as they fight for water and sun light).

Having forests that remain untouched by us is what our national parks are for. Other places, like many federally owned land are manage (the SRS ecology area where I live does this all the time, doing controlled burns to clear the undegrowth, and where they have done this, the trees are big and healthy).



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

If you watched 5 minutes and consider it total bs that is fine with me I never asked anyone to agree with anything I am getting a little tired of discussing the title rather than the videos contents though.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

Anyone ever tell you that there are more trees today than...

A really long time!



edit on 8-8-2016 by StallionDuck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Did you watch it?



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: StallionDuck
a reply to: khnum

Anyone ever tell you that there are more trees today than...

A really long time!




It is not about how many trees there were/ are, but the size, you just have to watch it.



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Stormdancer777

I tried to watch the second video but then I did not understand one word (!). Since it was only pictures instead of a video, I then left. I´m not blaming the narator. Just can´t understand him.

And if we want to talk about the fact that, yes indeed, in the past there was plenty more forest. And with that reasoning, there also more huge trees. But when was that? Bronze age? Jura? Why should I watch an hour+ video, telling me logic things.

Then with that matrix comment...

I think we all know about the deforestation. Kind of hard to do not.
edit on 8-8-2016 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I literally live in a forest.

Trust me, there's plenty of wooded, foresty areas left.

TheRedneck


Sounds nice, I have never lived outside of the crowded cities in my 30 years, I have visited some woods but never stepped foot into a forest before.
edit on 8-8-2016 by NeoSpace because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join