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

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

Expand Messages
  • Brian Morris
    Jun 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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.
      http://www.kswader.com/judi/civilwar/witnesstree.jpg

      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.

      Brian



      > 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