Secrets of the Lost Confederate Gold = As told by the talking Trees.

[GoDeep]

Ok, Great news Franklin, I did what you suggested and was able to get ahold of a Board member from the Danville Historical Society who lives just 4 blocks from the Cemetery and is familiar with the tree and even knows the caretaker of the cemetery! He was able to get us multiple views and a measurement and insight into the tree in question so a big shout out to him!

He said that during the 1920's after WWI, a lot of these trees were planted for "beautification" projects (and they even went so far in Danville as to plant a tree for every fallen soldier) and he estimates the tree is around 100 years old based on his experience. He indicated many of trees have had to be taken down now as their branches are falling and what not.

Also, of great importance from an evidentiary standpoint, he confirmed on the ground, that the aerial photos I have of the tree are of the correct beech tree, so we can accurately use those aerials to help date the tree and its size throughout the years.

So, the final measurement, (and as you can see the tape isn't super tight, so it's a generous measurement), is 118" circumference just below where it starts to branch out so it's 14 inches smaller than what you remember it was. So, when using the age calculator 118 divided by 3.14 x 6 = 229 divided by 2 since it's domesticated (pruned, watered, no undergrowth, minimal competition around it etc) gives us an approximate age is 114 years old, which is consistent with the beautification projects and plantings that took place after WWI in the 1920's.

What i found was it is wider looking around the other side then the one photo i was using for demonstration, as it's kind of oval, so it's bigger or smaller depending on what side of the tree you are on.

So to recap:

- Height age estimators put it at 80-100 years old
- Aerial Photo's, now confirmed on the ground as being the correct tree, show it as a small tree in 1955
- Ring growth size of domestic Beech's reach .300 per side per year, giving us a diameter consistent with it's size
- Comparison photo's of known 200-300 year old beech's show its significantly smaller by a factor of a good 3-4 times.
- Comparing the known age of a Pin Oak (under 100 years old) from the cemetery with a girth twice as large consistent with its twice as fast growth rate allows us to gauge the Beech's age as similar.
- Circumference measurements put it's approximate age at 114 years old.
- Historical Society board member familiar with the tree also estimates it at around 100 years old based on his knowledge of the area.

Based on all the evidence at our disposal, I believe we can confidently average it's age at around 100 years old.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[GoDeep]

Oh, and i also forgot some strong "smoking gun" evidence the historian provided which helps date the tree post civil war.

You had indicated you believed this tree was there well before the Civil war graves were, but he confirmed that there was originally two graves right where the tree is now growing!

Had the tree existed during the civil war, there is no way they would have dug under the tree, buried bodies there and then just rested the gravestones against the tree so it is clear and convincing evidence that the tree came along well after the graves were laid and it "grew" into them displacing those two graves, hence them having to move the stones!

So that's now a 7th way we've been able to narrow done it's age.

I'm going to look for the original grave plats too to confirm this even further but here is a great photo that clearly shows the tree grew up amongst the graves after the stones were laid, not before:

 

[Ol' Kentuck]

That's simple, they didn't and couldn't have marked this particular tree, unless they were still alive in the 1950's or there about. Having spent a significant part of my career in Law Enforcement, I try to let the evidence form the narrative, not the other way around.

First, with clear and convincing evidence, we've established that tree is no more than 100 years old, likely closer to 80 years old given the aerial photos, which from an evidentiary standpoint, are the strongest and most credible evidence one can obtain. We crossed checked the photo dating with Height, circumference and ring dating estimations as well as with comparative photo's of known 200-300 year old beech trees.

If other credible evidence exists elsewhere that these two chararcters carved a tree in that Cemetery at some point in the 1800's, we then need to look for other evidence to explain where it may have gone such as historical records from the groundkeepers about tree's that may have been blown over, died, stuck by lightening or removed for other reasons at some point in the late 1800's or early 1900's.

We could also look through any local county or state archives for old photo's of the cemetery in the later 1800's and early 1900's that show some of the original trees that existed in that cemetery and maybe if we're really lucky, even find some of carvings in trees that people found interesting at the time.

Have to keep diggin', thats part of the thrill of investigating!

Bravo! An Exemplary example of the use of forensic methods in historical research. 🏆

The use of forensic methods in Historical Research is the only way to determine Factual Accounts. Researchers who are operating from a position of Confirmation Bias do not perform this very important process. They merely search for information that confirms their Preconceived Notions, with no regard for the source or accuracy.

Through your meticulous scientific analysis of the physical evidence you were able to reveal this account to be flawed. The author did not do his due diligence in determining the actual age of the tree in question, unfortunately relying instead on partial research that appeared to confirm his preconceived notions.

When presented with flawed research, a forensic historical researcher/investigator traces the various sources and disposition of information back to the original source. In that process they can identify where and when and how the information became contaminated. In this instance, the first source was the author's measurements related to the tree's age. But digging Deeper (pun intended), a second source is revealed.

In this case, you've identified a likely candidate for earlier contamination....the 1880's account. Further research in that direction should begin to peel back the layers this tale has accumulated.

Again, Bravo, great use of Forensics and Deductive Reasoning. I look forward to your further analysis. 👍

Have a Good'un. 🍻

 

[franklin]

You can bravo all you want to as I said in a prior post I do not care if the tree is 80 years old or 500 years old, I only care about the information from it. And I can tell you it is real. You are getting the age of the tree wrong due to you say it is domestic tree and watered. Far from the truth. You do not divide by 2, you use the age of 6 times every inch of diameter which is still 207 years old and 51 years before the Civil War. The Oaks were planted not the beech tree. Also the 118 inches is not measured exactly 4 feet from the base of ground also subtracts age from the tree. I will find these treasures and shut you all up for good.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Franklin…..I’m confused. You stated that you had already found the treasure?

 

[franklin]

I guess I meant recover these treasures. I went and checked on $11 Million in gold bars today. I still have to get a gpr and an apparatus to drill 15 feet. I had landowner permission about 15 years ago but work kept me from doing anything. Work is out of the way now to get permission again. The treasure is still there according to what I found out today on recon.

 

[GoDeep]

You can bravo all you want to as I said in a prior post I do not care if the tree is 80 years old or 500 years old, I only care about the information from it. And I can tell you it is real. You are getting the age of the tree wrong due to you say it is domestic tree and watered. Far from the truth. You do not divide by 2, you use the age of 6 times every inch of diameter which is still 207 years old and 51 years before the Civil War. The Oaks were planted not the beech tree. Also the 118 inches is not measured exactly 4 feet from the base of ground also subtracts age from the tree. I will find these treasures and shut you all up for good.

You don't care if it's 80 or 500 years old?! Someone who was genuinely interested in accurately deciphering and documenting history would always be open to new information and willing to change their views based on the myriad of new facts and evidence that continually emerge as time and technology progresses. I would encourage you to adopt that strategy in all your research going forward.

The elephant in the room with you "only caring about the information from it" is that the information is only as accurate as the evidence upon which you are relying to determine by whom and when it was actually written. Now that we know that the tree is only approx. 100 years old, it means the characters you think carved on it starting in the early 1800's up past the civil war did not and could not have been the ones who carved it, thus altering any previous conclusions you have come to.

Clinging to the one ambiguous age estimator which was designed to estimate trees growing in the wild as though we didn't cross check it 6 different other ways is severely straining credulity.

- Historic aerial photos from 1955 to present (definitive proof of the trees size and growth rate)
- Displaced Graves (definitive proof that the tree postdates the gravestones it displaced)
- Tree Height and Age Estimator (estimates it at 80-100 years old)
- Comparison with known and documented trees in it's vicinity (Giving an estimated age of under 100 years old)
- Ring growth rates in non wild settings (up to .600 per annual growth rate, so conservatively .500 x 80 years =40inch diameter and our actual measured tree comes in at 38 inch diameter!)
- Size compared to known 200-300 year old specimens (the cemetery beech is a good 2-5 times smaller)

Good day sir.

 

[franklin]

You don't care if it's 80 or 500 years old?! Someone who was genuinely interested in accurately deciphering and documenting history would always be open to new information and willing to change their views based on the myriad of new facts and evidence that continually emerge as time and technology progresses. I would encourage you to adopt that strategy in all your research going forward.

The elephant in the room with you "only caring about the information from it" is that the information is only as accurate as the evidence upon which you are relying to determine by whom and when it was actually written. Now that we know that the tree is only approx. 100 years old, it means the characters you think carved on it starting in the early 1800's up past the civil war did not and could not have been the ones who carved it, thus altering any previous conclusions you have come to.

Clinging to the one ambiguous age estimator which was designed to estimate trees growing in the wild as though we didn't cross check it 6 different other ways is severely straining credulity.

- Historic aerial photos from 1955 to present (definitive proof of the trees size and growth rate)
- Displaced Graves (definitive proof that the tree postdates the gravestones it displaced)
- Tree Height and Age Estimator (estimates it at 80-100 years old)
- Comparison with known and documented trees in it's vicinity (Giving an estimated age of under 100 years old)
- Ring growth rates in non wild settings (up to .600 per annual growth rate, so conservatively .500 x 80 years =40inch diameter and our actual measured tree comes in at 38 inch diameter!)
- Size compared to known 200-300 year old specimens (the cemetery beech is a good 2-5 times smaller)

Good day sir.

First GoDeep I do not know what your problem is and I really do not care about that either but you are messing up my thread by you are completely closed minded of your scientific proof that proves nothing. You can compare trees and dates all you want to, and you would still be wrong.
You say you have information from a Board Member of the Danville Historical Society? Great, give us their name and address so I can go down and correct his/her mis-information. Also there is no Caretaker at the National Cemetery in Danville, it is taken care by an Independent Company in North Carolina that just happens to work for the National Cemetery Administration under the US Veterans Administration.
Even if the measurement of 118 inches in girth is correct and I am not saying it is? You do not divide by 2 to get the age of a beech tree. If this is the case show me a beech tree that is domestic or wild and the difference in their girth. There is none. You go by the directions and measure four feet up and get the circumference and multiply by six to get the age of a beech tree. Go all over the East Coast and get me two beech trees that are known to have been planted 80 years ago and measure their girth. I do not care if they are domestic or wild they will be the same and they will be no more than 13 or 14 inches in diameter. This beech tree in Danville, Va., according to your own anonymous measurement is still 34.4 inches in diameter multiplied by 6 is 206.5 years old.
Please do not come on my threads with your erroneous and anonymous quotes that fly in the face of common sense. I have dates on that tree May 4, 1863, May 2, 1865. There are other dates of unimportance that date to the 1830's. So don't give that this tree is less than 100 years old. You are wrong and your evidence is wrong. Here is my proof which blows away all of your posts all at one time. Good-bye sir now find someone else to spread your mis-information. You are completely and inexplicably wrong.

Tree Age Calculator | Good Calculators

You can use this simple tree age calculator to determine the estimated age of living trees. Simply use a measuring tape to measure the circumference of the tree, input the type of tree, and then click on the 'Calculate' button to calculate the tree's age

goodcalculators.com

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Thanks to Godeep for debunking yet another attempt to use fiction as fact in order to promote sales of books.

 

[GoDeep]

you are completely closed minded of your scientific proof that proves nothing.

Interesting take Franlkin. I've researched dozens of sources, spent numerous hours crunching data, preparing exhibits, providing sources, even seeking outside help a 1000 miles away and in the end i'm " close minded and science doesn't prove anything"?! Pot, meet kettle.

You say you have information from a Board Member of the Danville Historical Society? Great, give us their name and address so I can go down and correct his/her mis-information. Also there is no Caretaker at the National Cemetery in Danville

First, yes, i did and yes he is, i have no reason to doubt his claim and no, i will not provide you someone's name and address so you "can go down there" and harass them. As far as the caretaker, that is what he told me, that he knew the caretaker there. Is the caretaker employed by the private company you claim takes care of it, that is entirely possible or by "caretaker", did he mean some management type who oversees the cemetery rather than physically goes out there and mows the lawn each week, also very possible.

Please do not come on my threads with your erroneous and anonymous quotes that fly in the face of common sense.

First, i once was firmly scolded by a mod for telling people not to come on my thread. We do not own the threads, their content, nor control who can post on them as long as they are being reasonably respectful and on topic.

Second, "fly in the face of common sense"? What part of my aerial photos, links, sources, tree height/age calculators, historical photo comparisons, tree ring width calculators etc fly in the face of common sense? Me thinks you may want to self-reflect a little bit more on who may not be using common sense.

I have dates on that tree May 4, 1863, May 2, 1865. There are other dates of unimportance that date to the 1830's.

What do you mean by this, you mean dates are actually carved in tree? I just confirmed with my guy in Danville who stated there are no dates carved in it.

 

[GoDeep]

You are wrong and your evidence is wrong. Here is my proof which blows away all of your posts all at one time. Good-bye sir now find someone else to spread your mis-information. You are completely and inexplicably wrong.

Tree Age Calculator | Good Calculators

You can use this simple tree age calculator to determine the estimated age of living trees. Simply use a measuring tape to measure the circumference of the tree, input the type of tree, and then click on the 'Calculate' button to calculate the tree's age

goodcalculators.com

Back to the old tree calculator which is based on wild trees, all the while continuing to completely ignore a myriad of other cross check methods.

Here, first lets put to rest this tree circumference debate once and for all. I'll even provide links so you can stop the accusations.

- Are tree circumference age calculators based on wild growth trees? Yes: The growth rate formula we are using was developed by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) for wild trees in a forest environment: https://www.lancastercountytrees.org/estimating-the-age-of-trees

-Do we significantly reduce the age for wild growing vs domestic growing trees? Yes: "Also, trees growing in a woodland environment typically have a restricted crown and therefore increase in circumference at about half of the rate of full, open-grown tree found in a park or residential landscape." https://www.purduelandscapereport.org/article/how-old-is-my-tree/

"For younger street and landscape trees, pick a genus or species from above and reduce the Growth Rate Factor by half." https://www.treehugger.com/estimating-forest-trees-age-1343321

- Can we rely on tree circumference age calculators: Directly from the ISA referencing their tree growth calculator: " "tree growth rates are affected tremendously by conditions such as water availability, climate, soil conditions, root stress, competition for light, and overall plant vigor. Further, the growth rates of species within genera can vary significantly, So, only use this data as a very rough estimate of a tree's age and these (Tree age calculators) should be considered very rough calculations" https://www.treehugger.com/estimating-forest-trees-age-1343321

Now, this allows us to turn our attention to the 6 other ways we cross confirmed its age and i'll address those one by one so that it keeps it on topic.

 

[franklin]

Thanks to Godeep for debunking yet another attempt to use fiction as fact in order to promote sales of books.

GoDeep has debunked not a damn thing.