That's good news. Which is even stranger because it means the web site author hasn't ground-truthed their own info. Raises the question even more so, why do it if they haven't actually seen some of the trees they're posting "locations" for.mdvaden wrote:...he leak has more errors than they realize. So it's also a contaminant in other ways.
Not sure if there's good news because they've been to plenty of trees. But apparently they don't communicate with people normally networking openly. That means they can't confirm stuff they speculated for. They probably think they were owed what other's invested to find. Instead of acting moderately where they may have been able to join in, they went extreme and cut themselves off from new finds. They played a contorted "chutes and ladders" game where top row squares dropped them down the longest chute. In a broader perspective, they are losers and triggered more wear and tear. Since anyone else could have found many redwoods anyway, and more carefully, as proven by other more sensible people years ago.AndrewJoslin wrote:mdvaden wrote:That's good news. Which is even stranger because it means the web site author hasn't ground-truthed their own info. Raises the question even more so, why do it if they haven't actually seen some of the trees they're posting "locations" for.
-AJ
Leakers became tantamount to squabbling masked people breaking windows. Ineffectively hoping to change something, but causing damage at other's expense. When I applied for research permits, I found out from someone at the parks that this situation caused difficulty for researchers to get permits and put a choke-hold on research photos. That's why less is available now for the general public to see. For any who saw it years ago, the Humboldt State Univ. albums were removed. And it all relates to the redwoods park's management and it's reaction to leaks and wear and tear.AndrewJoslin wrote: That's good news. Which is even stranger because it means the web site author hasn't ground-truthed their own info. Raises the question even more so, why do it if they haven't actually seen some of the trees they're posting "locations" for.
-AJ
T-Rex is key! Those responsible have never been to this tree which is why their website (and various posts) fail to even mention it. The other two omissions are less important because they can be explained away alternatively. They either didn't know where those two legendary trees are located, or feared that they would be caught red handed if they shared such sensitive classified information openly. Perhaps they needed some cover and wanted to throw certain people off their scent. Who know? I'm just speculating. But that's my two scents on this unfortunate incident.mdvaden wrote:Leakers became tantamount to squabbling masked people breaking windows. Ineffectively hoping to change something, but causing damage at other's expense. When I applied for research permits, I found out from someone at the parks that this situation caused difficulty for researchers to get permits and put a choke-hold on research photos. That's why less is available now for the general public to see. For any who saw it years ago, the Humboldt State Univ. albums were removed. And it all relates to the redwoods park's management and it's reaction to leaks and wear and tear.AndrewJoslin wrote: That's good news. Which is even stranger because it means the web site author hasn't ground-truthed their own info. Raises the question even more so, why do it if they haven't actually seen some of the trees they're posting "locations" for.
-AJ
