Page 134 - 1970S

28
from DE.AD tree stumps. These are
pieced together in a delicate manner.
Surprisiog Age of Living Trees
There are no live 50,000-year-old
trees. None at 25,000. None at 10,000.
As a matter of fact, the oldest known
trees pose an enigma to uniformitarian
- noncatastrophic - thinking.
Speaking of the bristlecone pine,
famed dendrochronologist Edmund
Schulman said, "Microscopic study of
growth rings reveals that a bristlecone
pine tree found last summer at oearly
10,000 feet began growing more tban
4,600 years ago ... Many of its neigh–
bors are nearly as old; we have now
dated 17 bristlecone pines 4000 years
old or more" (Edmund Schulman,
"Bristlecone Pine, Oldest Living
Things," National Geogt·aphic Maga–
zine, Vol. 113, No. 3, March, 1958, p.
355).
Dr. Schulman was puzzled with the
same approximate age limit to the giant
sequoia trees which he studied. These
trees enjoy near-perpetual life in the
absence of gross destruction. They ap–
pear to be immune to insect attack.
Since this is so, Dr. Schulman asked
the following question as early as 1934:
"Pertinent also is the well-known
fact that standing snags of this species,
other than those resulting from factors
of gross destruction, are unknown. Does
this mean that shortly preceding 3275
years ago (or 4000 years ago, if John
Muir's somewhat doubtful count was
correct) all the theo-living giant
sequoias were WIPED OUT BY SOME
CATASTROPHE?" (Edmund Schulman,
Longevity Under Adversity in Coni–
fers," Science, Vol. 119, March 26,
1934, p. 399.)
Tbat is something to think about!
Why is it that these still-living trees
seem to be the original trees that grew
in the present stands?
That sorne series of catadysrnic
occurrences wiped out numerous forms
of mammal life on earth cannot be dis–
puted. Did that occur just beyond the
historical era- around 4300 years ago?
Had something happened in the recent
past to "turn on" the system? Did the
effects from a catastrophe or series of
catastrophes gravely distort dates from
the prehistoric period? Were conditions
different in the prehistoric period -
The PLAIN TRUTH
gravely affecting radiocarbon and tree
ring dating?
Libby challenged sorne of the tree
ring findings in 1963. "Recently, it has
been reported that sorne trees add more
than one ring per year, and thus a ques–
tion has been raised about the accuracy
of tree ring dates.
"This finding indicates that rings
sometimes have been incorrectly corre–
lated with years, too great an age hav–
ing been assigned from tree rings"
(Wi!Jard F. Libby, "Accuracy of
Radiocarbon Dates," Science, Vol. 140,
No. 3564, April 19, 1~63, p. 270).
More Than Ooe Ring Per Year
Libby's statement was partially based
on researches done in the state of Texas.
Much of the work, supervised by W.
S. Glock, revealed that SPECJAL condi–
tions are required for trees to put on
only a single ring per year consistently.
In an ltrtide appearing in the journal
Endeavor, W. S. Glock and S. R.
Agerter wrote:
"It has long been supposed that tree
rings are formed annually and so can
be used to date trees. The studies of
tree ring formation ... have shown that
this is not always so, as more than one
ring may be formed in one year.
"Two growth layers, one thick, the
other thin and lenticular, proved to be
more common than one growth layer
in this particular increment [that was
studied]. Three growth layers, in fact,
were not unusual. A maximum of five
growth layers was discovered in the
trunks and branches of two trees.
"It must be pointed out that these
intra-annuals were as distinctly and as
sharply defined on the outer margin as
any single annual increment." (W. S.
Glock and S. R. Agerter, "Anomalous
Patterns in Tree Rings," E11deavor,
January, 1963, Vol. 22, pp. 9, 13.)
The researchers stated it would have
been JMPOSSIBLE to know which rings
were put on what year - except for
effects of frosts in various years visible
in the trees.
A Big Challenge
Dendrochronologists challenged Lib–
by's assertion that bristlecone pine put
on more than one ring per year. In
their researches, they found no false
or additional rings per year.
"These results," they said, "a.re in
March, 1970
contrast to the findings ... where bran–
ches from a wide variety of Texas–
grown trees reveal mutiple growth
layers attributed to varying tempera–
tures and soil moisture." (Harold C.
Fritts, BriJtlecone Pine in the White
Motmtaim of California, Tucson: Uni–
versity of Arizona Press, 1969, p. 32.)
The above results, the author said,
were oo young branches of LOW eleva–
tion trees. These, they admitted, might
grow several times a year during a
long frost-frce season.
This multipücity of tree rings in
young, low elevation trees, "Led Libby
( 1963) to improperly infer that dis–
crepancies between tree-ring and radio–
carbon dates in HIGH-elevation bristle–
cone pine may be attributed to frequent
double rings. Al! studies that have
been conducted in the White Moun–
tains indicate that distinct double rings
carely occur." (Ibid., p. 32.)
Again, the present had to be used as
the key to the past. Suppose the White
Mountain area was for a long period
of time a LOW-LEVEL area- to be
dramatically raised up during a period
of mountaio building? Could the di–
mate of the White Mountain area at
this time have been similar to the
climate of Texas?
One could oot know it was low-level
and dimatically dil!erent. But neither
could one know it wAS THE SAME as
it is today.
Therefore, as any dating method,
dendrochronology was forced to extrap–
olate as was radiocarbon. If conditions
were different in the prehistoric period,
then tree rings may also oeed correcting.
But remember, even without double
riogs, the oldest living tree would be
less than about 5000 years old.
The Burden of Proof
The burden of evidence is on the sci–
entists. Until they concl11Iively prove
their assumptions to be true-until there
is a suitable check [ itself proved to be
correct] on radiocarbon - one cannot
accept radiocarbon dates for the pre–
historic past as valid.
There is much science does not know.
The facts show dear probability that
radiocarbon dates should be telescoped
into a very much shorter period of
time. O