My guess is that real numbers were provided and sounded boring, so a sensational last sentence was added to spruce things up for the common folk that wouldn't understand or respect the numbers up to that point...
PJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary A Beluzo To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 Ed, That is the sentence that cued me. Again, even if the LENGTH of one route to the branch tops is 300 feet, that would be far less than the HEIGHT. Gary On Nov 15, 2009, at 11:53 AM, Edward Frank <[email protected]> wrote: Paul, The problem isn't with the number of logs taken out of the tree, The article says: A Large Tree. --- Mr. D. E. Hawks, of Charlemont, cut a Pine tree a short time since, of the following dimensions. It was 7 feet through 10 feet from the stump, and 5 feet through 50 feet from the stump. Twenty-two logs were taken from the tree, the average length of which were 12 feet. Fourteen feet of the tree were spoiled in falling. The extreme length of the tree from the stump to the top twigs was 300 feet! ---- Greenfield Gazette. Ed -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
