Tree age being scrub'd now the max is 5400 years !

I love trees and how old they are!
well how old they use't to be.

the Methuselah is now only 4853 ?
I remember it being a grate deal older than that.
it was 40,000?
if you do a look on the inter net you dont
find trees older than about 5100.
google, wiki.

well that is unless you do a good search.
I found the Pando
www.leaflimb.com...
>"Pando is believed to be over 80,000 years old"<

What are they hiding?
why dont they wont us to know how old trees can be?

World's Oldest Living Tree -- 9550 years old -- Discovered In Sweden
www.boredpanda.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...

Why are they saying this? 5400 years old.
"Now, a researcher believes the tree—known as Alerce Milenario or Gran Abuelo, the “great-grandfather” tree—is likely the oldest in the world, reports Science’s Gabriel Popkin."
www.smithsonianmag.com...

a reply to: buddha

"Stupid book", LOL. So many misunderstand that book, esp. that 6,000 year thing, that is not what it says. What seems stupid to me is calling a book stupid if you've never read it or couldn't understand what you may have read.

a reply to: buddha
If only trees that age could talk , what would we've learned from that time in their younger years

Who said a tree was 40k lol...

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Who said a tree was 40k lol...

So you DID Not read the link about the one 80K?

Are they hiding something or preparing the ground for what is to come?

When the great die off, err reset, finishes the figures will be there for all to see.

No tree older then 5100 years.

Why? Who knows but it is weird.

a reply to: buddha

I cant find how they date the clonal trees (Pando).

"Pando, meanwhile, is significantly older. Until recently, rough estimates had it at something like 80,000 years old; this has been revised down significantly in light of the fact that the area of Utah in which it lives was covered by an ice sheet 20,000 years ago, a problem even the most badass tree would have trouble surviving. Pando’s now clocking in at a mere 15,000 or so."

In other words, they're just guessing.

a reply to: buddha

I always recalled it being about the same age you say they are calling it (About 5000 years old).

But it was only really an estimate since to actually truly date the tree they would have had to kill it and count it's ring's which would be a cruel and senseless act of vandalism just to satisfy someone's curiosity.

It is worth also remembering that some tree's are actually grown from the root of far older tree's and so a continuation of a tree whose original trunk has long since fallen meaning even if counting the ring's there true age could be older but it is simply that the older part of the tree has since long vanished, sometimes a tree dies and fall's but one of it's branches somehow stay's alive and the fallen tree simply becomes part of the branches root's.

That said I have heard of a tree that was growing on a Greek island that was believed to have once had one of there ancient scholars sitting under it so that would be well over 2000 years old, there is supposed to be a Bodi tree that your namesake was believed to have sat under that was still alive if I recall.


Over in Israel the Jerusalem Date palm was actually Extinct for nearly 2000 years since the Romans burned the date groves to the ground when they sacked the city in AD 58/59, these were the same Date palm's whose leaves had been lain down in front of Christ when he entered the city on a Donkey but some lady's asked for some seed's that had been found at Qumran and were actually able to get them to germinate, there are now a limited but viable number of these ancient Date Palm's that have been brought back to life thanks to this and once again the Jerusalem Date palm whose Dates were once regarded as not only tasty but also to have a number of medicinal property's will someday become available for people to eat.


But as for the oldest living thing on the earth, it is any ones guess we only know what they have told us BUT there are some desert plant's other than just tree's that have specialized in being able to lay dormant for very great periods of time to weather draught's and long periods without rain, then there are some very slow growing lichen's in places like Antarctica and the Arctic regions that may also turn out to be very old indeed.

And of course there are Dormant life form's some of which are tens of thousands of years old frozen but not dead in the permafrost of the polar regions as well.

But as for humans.

Well other than some claims of extreme longevity such as from China were one man was claimed to be over 200 years of age there are actually several groups such as the Hunza of Pakistan an isolated people with a very healthy diet and probably strong genes for long life whom are said to live to over a hundred and twenty, there woman are said to be able to have children into there sixty's as well.

a reply to: buddha

the fortinghall yew tree supposedly planted by druids is estimated to be between 2000-5000 years old

Fortinghall church and yew tree

some believe it could be the oldest tree in Europe

A tree does not have to bee killed to be aged reliably. They have a long coring tool. The only living tissue on a tree trunk is the cambium layer right under the bark, so other than a small hole that can be filled with almost anything, it will not harm the tree and a hole that small is equivalent to trimming off a small branch. It will heal right over. In many cases though, they may opt against anything that could possibly introduce disease or anything else in something so sacred.


One of the more interesting tree aging situations was a study aging some spruce trees on a coastal cliff. They were just several inches tall, and the same species that were a hundred or more feet tall growing on top of the cliff. The ones growing on the rock face though were very small, but hundreds of years old (natural bonsai due to poor conditions). At first, they couldn't find any growth rings, but finally were able to see them with an electron microscope. The rings were in many cases only a single cell thick. In this case, for a tiny tree, it almost certainly was cut off completely to do the count, but for larger trees it is no big deal.

originally posted by: cooperton
...
In other words, they're just guessing.

You've seen me write that for years, and we have probably agreed on it before.

Science is an " Educated™ " guess, and our " best-science " is our best guess.

Science would vary somewhat, as scientists and experts discovered new information, and got new data and evidence.

" Science™ " can change drastically, even flip-flop, as new Agendas™ and Narratives™ are formed, new Policies™ are integrated, and Scientists™ and Experts™ receive orders on their talking-points, and are given the desired Results™, that they subsequently have to somehow Scientifically™ justify.

originally posted by: Nothin



" Science™ " can change drastically, even flip-flop, as new Agendas™ and Narratives™ are formed, new Policies™ are integrated, and Scientists™ and Experts™ receive orders on their talking-points, and are given the desired Results™, that they subsequently have to somehow Scientifically™ justify.

Clearly spoken by someone who doesn't understand the scientific method and the nature of research. Academics involved in the hard sciences don't panda to "narratives" or receive orders on what to say. - Someone actively involved in medical materials research.

a reply to: Badams

The scientific-method needs no defense, from you or anyone else.
It stands strong, as perhaps our best method of trying-to understand the physical and material world.
It's a guess, and always has been, might always be.

My post had nothing to do with the scientific-method. How's that ?

The nature of research ? Not sure, so my temporary, non-guaranteed opinion, would be that's what a curious person does, to try and learn a bit about the subject of their curiosity. Something like that ?

Seriously doubt that there are many academics left. Could you point one out please ?

They have been replaced by " Academics™ " , who prioritize salary, Status™, Reputation™, Tenure™, and job-security ; they have to play their particular Institutions™ Politics™ right, depend on Grants™ for their Research™-Funding™, which they will only get consideration-for, if they correctly fill-out their Gender™-Diversity™-and-Inclusivity™-Statements™.

Academics : don't panda.
" Academics™ " : pandering to whoever writes the fattest cheques, or got them their Position™.

Am hopeful that you realize that my ideas are not critical of you, and your chosen passion : but indeed are pointing-out many of the things that have gone-wrong, or been usurped from the wonder of science we all imagined as youngsters.

Wanna guess again ?

A lot of The trees on my land are five inches around and forty years old....tiny rings. The bigger trees are way older, the old Birch I cut down was hard to count the rings. It was hollow and I was able to count about a hundred ten rings even though the inside eight inches was gone. Most of the areas in lower ground, the rings are thicker....I noticed this on some trees that grow slow on the top of some rocky hills in other places too. It must have a reason, I talked to others who cut a lot of wood and they said the same thing. A long time ago they logged this area out, back in the early nineteen hundreds, but left certain trees to repopulate the forests, about six different old trees were on my land here, two have since died. The rest are all less than a hundred twenty years old. I wish that old birch didn't die, it was huge, three feet around at the base which is still out there. I got a real lot of great firewood out of that tree, it stood too long before I cut it up, it would have made some beautiful lumber if I would have cut it before it died.

originally posted by: buddha

So you DID Not read the link about the one 80K?

That site lists Methuselah "With a death-defying 4,842"

The older ones are not trees as much as a root system... I guess you didn't read your own link..

Yep. Their guessing, consensus science beats evidence again.

Assuming their counting tree rings or something similar.

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: buddha

Why believe anyone that is telling you how old a tree is if you haven't counted the rings yourself?

a reply to: buddha

Had no idea they were scrubbing this information but it doesn't surprise me. Afterall , they want to keep their mainstream narrative of "civilization and and everything else did not exist before 6,000 BC, der der der derp" lol
S&F for your info OP!

a reply to: Nothin


I couldn't agree with your statements more because that is absolutely the case. Gotta keep the status quo to keep the masses stupid. I noticed early that the people they use the most to keep the status quo are the most indoctrinated "academics and scientists" because they can never think outside the paradigm of which they have been taught, staying very ignorant and fully believing they know everything on a subject and all other research or opinions that completely destroy their narrative are "absurd". That or they are assets, kind of like Carl Sagan. He fully believed in ET life and that it was already here, at the very beginning of his career. Then once he was somewhat established, he became a " debunker" at the behest of a 3 letter agency.

a reply to: buddha

Technically, the entire organism might be that old, but that doesn't mean that every component part is, just as it's not likely that any of your body cells are actually the same age as you are.