Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1390Re: [TalkAntietam] Re: Interrogating a witness tree

Expand Messages
  • Brian Morris
    Jun 30, 2004
      Here's a better and closer picture of the tree. This is a section cut out of
      one of the pictures I took of the bridge (I take high resolution pictures
      and then resize them down later) in April.

      As you can see, the tree looks much older than it does in any of the other
      pictures. I'm tending to think this one could very well be a witness tree
      now that I'm looking at these pictures I took with the tree in them.


      > Hi Brian,
      > Looks like the Burnside's Bridge sycamore may very well be a witness
      > tree, judging by specs found at
      > http://www.2020site.org/trees/sycamore.html Have a look.
      > However, documenting such things seems impossible aside from locale.
      > The tree depicted in the postwar (Forbes?) engraving, compared to
      > current size and breadth, strongly suggests a logical growth
      > progession.
      > Suffice it to say that odds are more in favor of it being the real
      > thing. If it could only talk... despite recent injury.
      > Tim
      > --- In TalkAntietam@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Morris"
      > <ironbrigade@k...> wrote:
      > > Found this website recently that purports to show witness trees to
      > certain
      > > Civil War battles. Some I know are correct such as the Baltimore
      > St.
      > > Sycamores and Locust tree in the Cemetery in Gettysburg but the
      > website also
      > > makes claims about the White Oaks at the Copse of Trees which I
      > know are not
      > > old enough to be witness trees.
      > > http://www.bivouacbooks.com/bbv2i1s4.htm
      > >
      > > For the Antietam Battlefirld they show a picture of the Sycamore
      > that sits
      > > alongside the Burnside Bridge and then show a picture taken
      > shortly after
      > > the battle that shows a tree in that same area. OK, I'm not a big
      > tree
      > > expert here but I've stood next to that tree by the Burnside
      > Bridge and it
      > > does not strike me as a 140+ year old tree. Just because there was
      > a tree in
      > > that general location in 1862 doesn't make the one there in 2004
      > the very
      > > same tree.
      > >
      > > Is that tree next to the bridge a witness tree or do we have
      > someone jumping
      > > to conclusions here based off of two trees being in a similar area
      > 140 years
      > > apart?
      > >
      > > Brian
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic