Talk:Hyperion (tree)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stephen C. Sillett reference

Misspelled reference ("sillet") went nowhere, I fixed this. Can't believe you read all of Wild Trees and still can't spell it right. Stephen C. Sillett 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Twenty minutes later this page has been reverted so that my name is misspelled and does not link to anything. This is stealing credit from me. If you need to fix the page, edit it don't revert it to a flawed state! I have more important things to do than go around correcting references to me on Wikipedia! Stephen C. Sillett 13:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Stephen C. Sillett was found to be a sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. Caliwiki123 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems that's not too relevant if the contribution was factual and accurate. "Sillett" is supposed to have two of the "l" and "t". So the comment for accuracy should not be disregarded.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyperion controversy / conspiracy theory

Having realized the potential for people suspecting a conspiracy surrounding Hyperion, or other California redwood giant trees, I planned to post regarding this. Then I noticed that this discussion page already starts with "Hyperion existence controversy" by a Dr.Varkly, who may or may not be a sock puppet. So the longer part of what I would post here, is already added up above in that section as a reply (see).Mdvaden (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyperion existence controversy

• 'These' are my academic credentials. I am a professor of Biology at HSU, the same university which sponsored the Hyperion measurement expedition and which insists on continuing to fund Dr. Sillett's biologically irrelevant research. Since his assertion that Hyperion is the tallest living tree on Earth, the biology department has been trying to get more information on the tree's location and identifying features. His refusals have been increasingly evasive. We are not trying to cut down his tree, we just wish to subject his scientific claims to the scrutiny of peer review. I am not wishing to use Wikipedia to bully Stephen into revealing the location of his tree, but unverified information should not be presented as scientific fact in any forum. It must be further noted that the latitude and longitude given as Hyperion's co-ordinates points to a stand of young redwoods in a well-logged switchback that was studied in a joint Biology/Botany forest succession survey in 2002, and neither Hyperion nor any other mature redwood can be found within miles of this point. DrVarkey 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to DrVarkey: Your name has been called a sock puppet below by someone, but I think that your post is a great discussion contribution either way. My guess is that you and Sillett may not be sock puppets after all. But on to my reply...

It had crossed my mind once, that some people might question the existence of not only Hyperion redwood in California, but likewise Atlas Tree, Iluvatar, Lost Monarch or El Viejo del Norte. But in searching for these California redwood trees, I discovered 2 separate undisclosed groves - Atlas Grove and Grove of Titans...

California Redwood Titans: Atlas Grove & Grove of Titans

After finding these titans like Lost Monarch and Iluvatar, I had a chance to photograph them, and find and measure the trunks of other redwood giants nearby as well. This experience documented that there is no conspiracy theory, but that virtually everything written about them is factual and real. But I understand people desiring to see proof. This is one reason that I supplied images on a web page showing more of a vertical view. My findings so far, leave me to be confident that Dr. Sillett's claims should be counted as reliable.Mdvaden (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• In re-editing the article I noticed that Reference 2 was to a general National Geographic page containing no information about Hyperion, and Reference 3 was to "Wild Trees," a biography of Sillett which in addition to being prejudicial in nature is not even cited in the paragraph. Hyperion controversy is real until Sillett's team releases actual coordinates, are primary sources not valid anymore? I will not make a big deal about this but the public deserves to know the consequences of excessive scientific secrecy. DrVarkey 16:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

DrVarkey was found to be a sock puppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. Caliwiki123 (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppets on this talk page

Both DrVarkey and Stephen C. Sillett were found to be sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/67.55.159.44. Disregard their comments. Caliwiki123 21:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. i am not a sock nor a puppet,but i agree with the statement,whe needs proof,thats where the burdin lies,so unless we have somthing verifiable we shouldnt promote this as 'worlds tallest'_4tildes_10/02/07_2:08pm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66Driftwood (talk • contribs) 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

In general - agreed. On the other hand, it's possible that photographic evidence was supplied to a website like the Gymnosperm database, which is a prevalent online resource for conifer data. High profile sites like that may be worth relying on to a certain degree.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyperion vs. Lost Monarch - Tallest vs. Largest

A lot of people confuse the idea of "tallest" with "largest" regarding redwood trees - Hyperion now being the tallest, and Lost Monarch the largest. This confusion is easily seen from questions manifested on Q & A sites like Yahoo Answers, etc..

An article now exists for "Lost Monarch (tree)" mentioning that it is the largest redwood. I am going to add a statement in that article pointing to this Hyperion article - and that Hyperion is the tallest.

As long as nobody sees and real reason otherwise, I'm going to add a brief statement in this Hyperion (tree) article pointing to the Lost Monarch (tree) article - and that Lost Monarch is the largest. This should help Wikipedia content to be organized, while reducing potentialconfusion.

Both articles are related too - sharing common reference like the book The Wild Trees. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Reverted "widest" back to "largest" for Lost Monarch

As far as the comparison with Lost Monarch, to show that Hyperion is the tallest but not largest, I reverted one person's edit of "widest" back to "largest" again. The Lost Monarch's greatest size is based on volume, which is not measured by width of the trunk. A tree that's the widest, typically refers to it's canopy width or trunk diameter.

On another note, Lost Monarch may be the "widest" and the "largest". But there is not much available for a list of trunk diameter measurements of coast redwoods that may have wider trunks, but be a lot shorter.

As far as Hyperion, the word "tallest" is the right word for a height champion. It is good that Lost Monarch, the largest, was added, because many people confuse tallest with largest, in the same way that widest could be confused with largest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.246.76 (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Video

There is a decent video that's been running on Youtube for quite sometime. Like a half million views worth. It's by Jim Spickler about climbing the tallest redwood.

It's of this tree Hyperion. I think it would be an excellent external link. He's an expert, the climbers are experts, and the video appears to adhere to Youtube's posting guidelines. Hopefully other editors speak up. I'll wait at least a week for feedback. If no objections occur in the next five to seven days, I'll post the link. Oh yes ... this is the one ...

Climbing the world's largest tree

Check it out - thanks ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hyperion 115.55 meters as of 2008.

I read from: link title Hyperion was recently re-measured in June/July 2008 and hasn't grown any taller -- still 115.55 meters tall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.55.204 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Documentation Link & Photos

Just added one external link.

One arborist included some extra information about Hyperion, plus a few photos. One on the resource page, and a couple more in it's albums. Those appear to be the only .jpg images available online for Hyperion. Seeing that the arborist is ISA certified, it's a fairly safe assumption that the photos and facts are accurately presented. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Emailed a request for a small Hyperion image contribution. The reply was "... will keep that in consideration. Please contact me after February again. I'm still in the phase of deciding which photos and sizes to use myself ..." So it's uncertain for now. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Age

How old is this tree? Please mention the source!
--79.218.103.87 (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Isn't this page the same as Sequoia_sempervirens? if it is a duplica, they should be merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.15.140 (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Units

While adding some text I switch the metric(english) to english(metric) in the top line because:

1. The referenced sources give only English units.
2. Although it is probable the researchers used metric measuring devices, there is no mention one way or another.
3. English units are used locally in California.

— Eoghanacht ^talk 17:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see it was changed back by someone. This is the way it should be done, because the equipment they used to measure was metric. See the video on the website of National Geographic in which you can see someone reading off the tape and saying joyfully: 115 point ... fifty five!! Tbc2 22:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

PHOTO NEEDED!

• If There Is Video of the mesaurement then there has to be a photo,at least a single frame from the video....THERE IS ONLY ON 'TALLEST IN THE WORLD' we should be able to see it. especially if they wont tell us where it is.

FOUR TILDES

• Actually, there is considerable disagreement within the academic community regarding the veracity of Sillett's claims. Not only are there no pictures, but Sillett has repeatedly refused to share the location of this alleged "giant" with fellow botanists, other HSU professors, or anyone but his immediate cadre of graduate students, all of whom are in thrall to his celebrity. Several independent expeditions by the biology department have not turned up this tree, and the belief is becoming widespread that Stratosphere Giant remains the tallest tree in the world, while the tree identified as "Hyperion" during the Carter administration was in fact logged by Pacific Lumber between 1988 and 1991. I prefer not to believe that my colleague would falsify data, but you should know that until a location is provided to the public this tree and its height have not been confirmed as scientific fact. DrVarkey 13:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

If you expend a little effort, and maybe a few hours, you should be able to find a web page that has a partial photo of Hyperion, or maybe some video, like the one on Youtube about climbing the world's largest tree. Anything like that can be added to external links.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• I included an example photo from Redwood National and State Parks. I think that is a good way to illustrate the article. Kaitymh (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)