Quelle: © Cheri' Glenn/Wikipedia; >> Link
There are topics that literally go over your head once you get to grips with them. That's how I feel and some others certainly feel when they deal with monstrous natural phenomena like the Devils Tower in Wyoming, USA.
When I first saw the picture of Devils Tower, I didn't see the woods around it or the isolated trees of the surrounding area, which are almost tiny as a toy train at the base of this "monument".
Here a drone flight around the Devils Tower, unfortunately without permission, to fly closer, because it is generally forbidden in National Parks to use drones. That's why you can't take a closer look at the plateau.
Anyway, I only saw the pedestal with a ... tree stump ... clear for me without thinking big and only looking at it superficially. Only much later, when I looked more closely, I noticed that the closer surroundings could not be brought together with my first assumption. But since I only perceived the picture superficially at first and overlooked the details around it, it was only later that I realized that I was dealing with a full-grown mountain which, according to mainstream science, originated (or is said to have originated) from an eruptive whim of nature.
Aerial photograph (source: Doc Searls) with the following description (Wikipedia); image source © Doc Searls/Wikipedia/>>Link:
… The circular shape of the land around it suggests the shape of the volcano itself. While Devils Tower is Tertriary in age (40-some million years old), the rock through which it intruded is a good bit older. The red rock is the Permian-Triassic Spearfish Formation, about a quarter-billion years old. Above it the white layer is of the more recent (Jurassic) Gypsum Spring Formation…
Seen from a distance and without knowing that, according to official doctrine, this is a purely geological phenomenon, one could also assume that we are dealing here with a cut plant or tree stump on a "peeled out" root-soil clod, the further course of which can be seen above all in the reddish section in the extension.
Only via the video of a Russian researcher on Youtube (>> Source) I became aware again of the Devils Tower, when it connected the mountain with giant trees from prehistoric times. Obviously the Devils Tower also seems to irritate others who see it for the first time.
Picture above (Gemeinfrei; >> Link); below Abgang Devils Rock
If one takes a closer look at the Devil's Tower, one notices that the complete substructure as also the course of the outer wall upwards reminds of a tree stump. But this course is apparently so steep that no hiking path leads up. But there are numerous steep wall climbers who try their luck there.
It gets even more exciting if you take a look at the top of Devils Tower. Aerial photos are only available of climbers with a helmet camera who reach the high plateau. At the Nasa you will find what you are looking for, but the shot (see below) is only visible from a bird's eye view at a great distance: the "de facto plane hilltop plateau" (original description Wikipedia), which reinforces the impression of a sawed off tree stump.
© NASA Earth Observatory/Wikimedia; >> Picture-Link
On the one hand one tries to distance oneself self-critically from fantasy speculations, but on the other hand science wants to make us believe that once again everything is done with the right things. According to mainstream science, we are dealing with volcanic rock, so-called phonolite. After all, it is completely different from the rock of the surrounding environment. The "dome-like" elevation was - how should it be justified differently - caused by plate tectonic processes.
It's very strange that Google itself doesn't release the representation of the high plateau on Google Earth, but only shows a blurred surface. What might be the reason for this?
The rock was formed by the solidification of magma, which is said to have split into individual lava columns during a cooling process. In this context it is attempted to explain that volcanic ash and lava remains can no longer be present due to permanent erosion. In other words, volcanic activity cannot really be detected - and yet the theory is still being persistently adhered to. By the way, it is strange that ash and lava residues have not yet eroded everywhere else in the world. So it must have been a highly peculiar volcanic activity.
Science is merely (as it itself admits) speculating that it must be a Lakkolithen or a drop in a volcano. But as I said, this is nothing more than an idea. It doesn't seem better or worse to me than the idea of a sawed-off tree trunk that various observers bring into the field. Admittedly, the theory is extremely unorthodox, but therefore not necessarily abstruse if you take a closer look at different characteristics.
OK, the theory of the Russian colleague is quite rebellious - for most indoctrinated spirits (for me, too, by the way) hard to digest. After all, the author of "There are no forests on flat earth" believes that mountains like Devil's Tower or mountain structures with high plateaus are petrified trees.
In principle, such a thesis contradicts everything that has been carved into our heads. Tree stumps with a gigantic diameter like Devils Tower? Such trees would not only have to grow into the sky, but even further. The Russian author calculates for us with a conversion formula that the trunk of Devils Tower (based on the trunk diameter) must have been several kilometers high. Reflexively the reaction rears up in me that such heights need corresponding atmospheric conditions in order to be able to exist at all - not to mention the roots. Such a thing is only possible in itself, if at the time of such trees completely different atmospheric conditions would have prevailed. And what happened then? Why did they disappear? Simply sawn off? With which tool and by whom ...?
Bold assertions followed by further questions, to which - similar to the basic idea - there are a few pertinent hints, but no concrete proofs. However, this is not the case with the eternal volcano and plate drift theory. These have only been programmed into us so that we don't even think about bold assertions in the first place. But one after the other:
In mineralogical jargon such formations are called 'natural rock formations'. This often occurs in basalt, for example at Gangolfsberg in the Rhön or on Iceland - the Swartifoss basalt columns. Are these, like the Devils Tower, the product of lava fountains, with a more or less smooth finish? In addition, these columns often form hexagon-like structures that can be seen all over the world.
The individual columns of the Devils Tower have a hexagonal structure or shape that can be found elsewhere in nature. Freeclimbers are always anxious to conquer these formations.
At the foot of the pedestal, the stone structures merge into the earth via curved turns. They clearly resemble the roots of tree stumps. The comparison is therefore not so far-fetched. One may ask oneself which lava modulation is said to have triggered this process so virtuously - with a closed upper edge (high plateau) on the same level.
The hexagon structures are obvious in the columns of the Devils Tower as well as in basalt columns in other places on earth. Sometimes they are also 5- or 7-sided cross-sectional structures (they are also called quasi-hexagonal). They look as if they had been machined with a milling machine and set individually.
Picture: The columns, which have not yet weathered to such an extent, show a high degree of precision (perpendicularity, parallelism, straightness), which can be checked in many places. The geometry is simply impressive.
Bild: © Philkon Phil Konstantin / Wikimedia Commons; >> Bildlink
There is a comparison with botany when plant fibre structures are examined under the microscope:
Flax fibre trunks have a hexagonal shape that strictly retain their geometry over the entire length of the bundle. The fibres do not differ from each other and are not only "inserted" over the entire length, but also exactly on each other.
Each fibre stump is covered with a thin shell. Just as with fascia - the soft tissue components of connective tissue (to form muscle fibers). The structure of the "stump" thus shows parallelities to botanical and/or organic tissue. Even if it is first of all stone.
If you look at the flax cross-section, you will see that this hexagonal similarity to the Devils Tower corresponds to the inner part of the trunk. Possibly the previous layers have already been removed and we can only see the inner part of the trunk. The overburden around the Devils Tower could offer some hints.
In addition, the fibres or stone formations do not go straight vertically into the earth, but branch out flattening - like the trunk of a root system. What magmatic pressure property should this have caused? There are no known records about underground processes or structures. It would be interesting to find out how the hexagons continue to run in the ground.
CC0 Creative Commons; © wsanter; >> Bildlink
How is it that fibre-like cross-sections are "sold" to us as lava eruptions? The picture shows the lava slag we usually know from active volcanic eruptions in a cooled state.
Here is another picture of the "basalt columns" of Giant's Causeway from Northern Ireland photographed from above. The quasi-hexagonal cross-section corresponds to that of the individual stone columns at Devils Tower. Wikipedia - Statement: "Formations of vertical basalt columns can occur with very slow and even cooling of lava".
My hint: But they have never been observed before. Maybe we are dealing here with petrified plant fibres after all? The explanation for the alleged vertical stress cracks does not come from geologists, but from "model" physicists. (>> Source).
Bild: Wikimedia Commons; >> Link
Basalt columns like the Devils Tower also exist in other parts of the world.
Wikimedia Commons; Symphony of Stones; Garni Valley; >> Bildlink
© Rob Farrow; Wikimedia Commons; >> Bildlink
Basalt Columns, Araucaria, Trees, Andes, Patagonia; Max Pixel – >> Bildlink (Bild gemeinfrei)
Of course, it goes without saying that new theories are accompanied by new questions. For example: If trees can grow for kilometres, what atmospheric composition would we have had to deal with? Certainly a different one than today. Such findings are not available to us here. But if you look at the finds of gigantic fossils, there is no question that the climatic conditions were completely different at one time or another. Of course you can also ask yourself the question, how gravity, atmospheric conditions and weather caprioles looked like at that time. Nobody can say today with certainty which climatic conditions prevailed at that time. Even if mainstream science sells itself very confidently as far as such scenarios are concerned. Other questions that arise are as follows: Who is supposed to have "cut off" this trunk and was there suitable equipment at the time to bring down kilometer-long trunks? Unfortunately, we know very little about this.
If you rely on the optical impression, there are dizzyingly many examples of how tree stumps of the XXXXL version could also look:
Le Mont Conner, Territoire du Nord, Australie; Wikimedia Commons; © Menphrad at German Wikipedia; >> Bildlink
Gamsberg; Namibia; © Dji77; Wikimedia Commons; >> Bildlink
The fact that wood can petrify is not a secret either for science or for us and could therefore also be the basis for the gigantic "giant tree remains", which here fit optically into a possibly new view of things.
Today, petrified wood can be seen in many places. The tourist site "Petrified Forest" in Arizona is a big figurehead. There we find neatly sliced tree "trunks", which allegedly consist of silicified wood. Wikipedia quote: "Overthrown trees were buried by floods under mud and silt. Bury of further deposits slowed down the natural decay of the wood due to lack of oxygen. Groundwater containing silicic acid seeped into the tree trunks under the thicker sediment cover. Quartz and chalcedony were deposited in the cavities of the trunks, gradually replacing the cell tissue and thus preserving the wooden structures of the trunks in stone.
The layers continued to sink and were flooded again. More and more layers of material carried by water were deposited on top. Much later tectonic movements in the earth's crust (see Laramic Mountain Formation) raised the land surface, the tensions within the rock layers caused the trunks to break. The now increasing erosion by wind and water gradually removed the softer layers of sediment and thus exposed the petrified tree trunks, which consist of hard quartz substance." (End quote)
If you take a closer look at the "trunks", you won't see anything of fractures, rather of cleanly cut woods. So this is what nature is supposed to have achieved?
Are the petrified woods in Arizona's Petrified Forest all supposed to be naturally broken? The whole thing sometimes looks more like a tourist production. The petrified bark has indeed remained completely intact, although petrified. Or the woods were expertly sawn before fossilization, which cannot be ruled out. Quartz is able to produce smooth fractures in this form. I don't think such a "coincidence" theory is plausible.
If one looks at the "mountains" in the background of the found petrified woods, the question arises again whether we are not dealing here with petrified tree stumps as well. Who can distinguish between a tree trunk and a branch? Perhaps we are dealing here with the branches of gigantic trees and not - as scientists would have us believe - with "broken" tree trunks..
Please take a look at the surrounding mountains. Wouldn't they be predestined for huge branches the size of the found trunks? They are petrified anyway. However, it is already clear that shaved tree stumps of this size are not associated with surrounding branches whose bark is still perfectly preserved.
Below are the mountains in the background, called "Tipis" (The Tepees)
Bild: © Finetooth; Wikipedia; >> Bildlink
The petrified forest of Sarmiento (30 km south of Sarmiento in Argentina) also reveals something surprising: Here, too, one finds petrified wood against a mountain backdrop. However, here one or the other piece is still in the middle of the mountain. As if it were a part of it. Maybe part or branch of a monstrous tree stump?
The petrified forest of Laas near Kötschach-Mauthen in Austria is a good example of the mineralisation of wood - in this case to quartz. In practice, it is extremely difficult to distinguish the former trunk from the surrounding quartz environment because practically everything is "one". The following film illustrates very clearly that former wood can only be identified as such by chance, if the bark is recognizable and if opposing external structures become visible (partly also due to the position of individual pieces of wood).
(Picture: Transverse petrified "trunk" in Laas); © PD; Wikimedia Commons; >> Bildlink
However, there is nothing to be said against or to exclude (which is not really investigated) that the entire environment once consisted of the material wood. Obviously, the inner structure of a tree can only be recognized by cutting the rock. The external consistency of the rock - this is conceded here by scientists - would not reveal anything. Only transverse structures and a trained eye (which does not lead to a concrete answer even after closer examination) would lead to a separate consideration of wood to "remaining" surroundings. Of course, one speaks here only of trunks and never of twigs or branches. Only roundish forms and intact former bark would lead to the optical separation of the surroundings.
Interestingly, the lecture also reports on a cell structure that can still be identified using thin section methods, whereas annual rings are generally no longer visible. The question therefore arises whether - if the suspicion of a cell structure is sufficient here - this principle cannot/may not also be used as a model for the Devils Tower. Apparently, however, this topic is rejected by science from the outset as too weird.
Another hint to the process of petrification:
In the meantime, the petrification processes of wood can also be reconstructed very well in the chemical laboratory and very hard silicon carbide can be produced practically overnight. The ingredients: hydrochloric acid and extreme heat. "In particular, this (ceramic) had the same microstructure as the original wood, including the numerous pores and microchannels, as shown by electron microscopy." (Quote: >> Quelle). It would certainly also be interesting to examine the pores and microchannel structures of the mountain soils in order to compare possible similarities with the petrified wood of the surroundings. I have not been able to find any indication as to whether this was done in the relevant areas.
Petrified forests, which must first be "identified" as such, show themselves to humans in many different ways - but with different characteristics and morphological peculiarities (here: Portland, Victoria).
We know that people have always been busy killing giant trees. This is documented by photos and records dating back to the 18th century.
Old illustrations from the time of the big tree cutters:
Whether the horrendous environmental damage that has taken place since the settlement has taken place only from an economic point of view? The workers certainly had nothing but economic reasons for it, that much should be certain. The question arises as to whether there was still more to it on the part of the contractors. The Russian author of the video quoted above considers that there are still overriding interests today to deforest these huge carbon dioxide reservoirs and, at best, to allow only a few - like the Californian redwoods - for tourist attractions.
He believes that the gigantic mammoth trees, if they ever existed - as well as the little "mammoth sprouts" we know of - formed a networked system that had energetic effects on all life on Earth. Perhaps it was something like a news network, a neural network, a global energy field, or everything in one. This is highly speculative, but may have been a possible reason for ( perhaps new) rulers on Earth to cut this link. But that cataclysmic disturbances (volcanic eruptions, floods, etc.) also played a role in the decline of the monstrous exemplars would also be beyond question in such a theory.
Picture: With a "ragged" 84 meters height, the so-called General Sherman Tree is sold to us as the largest tree on earth.
A contribution from "Die Welt" (>> Source) at least gives hints that a re-introduction of "giant trees" or clone production does not meet with much approval. The ridiculous argument of a threatening monoculture is brought into the field. On the part of the allegedly climate-conscious governments, no means are made available for this by the state.
Meanwhile the rare and for us already quite large exemplars are regarded as remnants of a vanished epoch and at best as pawn sacrifices of a long "felled" generation of far larger exemplars (at least according to the Russian author's estimation). A theory, which should be further investigated, but is not pursued further for reasons of alleged "abstrusity". At least there would be further indications of this, such as the finds in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
In the Black Hills of South Dakota, numerous fossilized woods of gigantic dimensions have been found, which science, however, does not hang on the big bell. Whether these are trunks or branches cannot be said with certainty. However, some look as if they had been cut with a saw before their fossilization.
The fact that a mathematical formula - applied to the trunk circumference or diameter - is to be an absolute guarantor for trees several kilometres in size must be left open. That certainly depends on the tree species or plant. Baobabs from South Africa in particular have an enormous base area, but are therefore not overproportionally large.
In numerous cultures, the theme of the giant trees, which is at best symbolically interpreted, is still anchored today. The Edda reports of Yggdrasil: "I know an ash tree, its name is Yggdrasil, The High; covered in light fog, From there comes the dew, which falls into valleys, evergreen it stands at the primeval fountain.
Also the Bible describes it as "tree of life" or "wood of life" (Revelation Joh. 22, 7, 19; I. Mos. 2,9). This also results in the cult of setting up Christmas trees and decorating them accordingly. The same is the case for the church fair tree or the maypole, which is regularly decorated with colorful ribbons. It is said to have originally been set up on Germanic cult sites or mountains. The origin of the so-called "primeval fountain" and thus of the giant tree is assumed in the polar region. The trunk stood for the earth axis, the branches for the stars. Nine worlds are also interpreted into the miracle tree here. Whether the existence of a gigantic primeval tree in the North Pole region can be deduced from this, or whether these stories are pure fairy tales, cannot be finally answered at this point.
By the way, the Devils Tower named at the beginning has not always been called that. Its name among the Indians was Bear Lodge and "Tso-aa", "tree rock".
If you allow the theory of km-height trees, not only the sawn-off stumps are of interest, but also the broken ones. Assuming that such giant trees have not all been wilfully removed, the question of the remaining stumps persists. To those who have rugged peaks - we know them as normal mountains. Should these possibly also be remaining stumps of such giant specimens, which were destroyed by a natural event like lava, storm, fire or a lasting flood like the Great Flood?
The Monument Valley in Utah (see below), which is assigned to the Navajos, is a prime example of a smooth tree stump landscape that geologists call "mesas". Such plateau-like landscape elevations exist all over the world. As with the Devils Tower, we should be dealing here with quite "normal" elevations against the background of tectonic movements, which are also practically cleaned or levelled by wind and weather. If, according to science, bright polishing does not work as well, erosion will resist rocks of different hardness and weight.
Foto: © J Brew/ Wikimedia; >> Bildlink
The theory doesn't sound any more daring than the theory of shaved-off giants like the Devils Tower. It cannot be assumed that the same laws applied to all "prehistoric" plants - that such plant structures did not perhaps even look like fungi or sponges or that they lived without plant fibres. The diversity of species at that time was probably at least as great as in today's "microcosm".
The author of the Russian video even spoke of a silicon era in which plants were not necessarily or exclusively of cellular origin. This assumption, too, is left open for now. In any case, a cataclysmic event such as a worldwide flood or volcanic eruptions could have brought down these giants and provided for the immense deposits of coal that are available to us in gigantic underground layers. Current and extremely conservative estimate according to official statements: For black coal this is approx. 130 years and for brown coal 270 years and is thus considerably greater than that of natural gas and oil (each under 50 years). In Germany alone, around 36.3 billion tonnes of brown coal were stored in 2014, which could be mined at current prices and using current technology. This means that if production remained constant, Germany's reserves would be sufficient for around 203 years. In this context, one gets an approximate idea of what is still hidden in the ground everywhere.
Without having a definite answer to the open questions or explicit evidence, I can make up with the theory of a "Garden of Eden" existing at that time, without therefore joining creationist ways of thinking 1:1.
Is it really so easy for you from an optical point of view to differentiate between wood and rock? This video shows the problems quite clearly:
I will continue to take up the topic, although so far there are "only" indications for this rather new theory. An open-minded person who has not yet been completely taken over by the mainstream might also be interested in this idea. None of this can finally be proven (at least not at this point in time). However, it makes sense to put the school opinion to the test in the same way. (to be continued).