Don't really see the point of this thread. If you want people to see them, then tell them.

Then the point ain't for you, if you don't see the point.

It probably means that you don't have the documents and articles compiled that other folks are sorting through.

I get a ton of emails from people who have been searching, and have not found them, because they are unaware that Preston wrote something misleading, even if inadvertently.

As far as telling them, that suggestion is not useful at present moment. Might be next year or following, but not presently.

The problem is not the "want" to see them, but them being unaware of an obstacle.

From what I've seen in the emails for clues, most folks don't need to be told where they are. As long as they know that something in a non-fiction book is "hay-wire", they'll be able to isolate it.

Ever consider that maybe you have been fed misinformation for the purpose of keeping you out? Some things might best be let alone because a few devotee visitors could soon become a throng of idiot vandals. Just as the damage wrought by souvenir seekers has resulted in Methuselah, long believed the oldest living bristlecone pine, having its location concealed by the Forest Service.
You have lived this long without seeing those trees. Give it a break.

In a non-fiction book, it's better to omit any description, than to supply a false one. So Preston could just as easily conceal the trees by ommission, than misrepresentation.

Aside from the book, I discovered via email, that at least one of the researchers is willing to lie about the grove.

I found two images online, one of a known landmark, and another from the top of an Atlas Grove tree, showing other near identical landmarks. Later, I emailed that the two photos must have been taken from the same angle and in fairly close proximity. The response was that the location of the one photo, was not anywhere near Atlas Grove. 1/2 hour later, the image from the top of the Atlas Grove tree was pulled off the internet.

While down in Prairie Creek Redwoods, I noticed that Atlas Grove was indeed very close to where the second image was, and that the photos were taken from almost the same angle. Maybe 2 degrees apart.

Anyhow, "giving it a break" is not a consideration anymore, having photographed both groves. The only folks that could give it a break are those seeking, and that seems to be a fairly steady flow.

Actually, I'll be down at Crescent City and Trinidad, California, August 11th to 14th to hike in the redwoods. I will be recording video of Atlas Grove this time, as well as getting more images. I already have video of the Grove of Titans, plus a large assortment of photostitch panoramas.

Earlier this month, I made two maps for Atlas Grove and The Grove of Titans, but they are in a password protected album, probably held in reserve until the day that someone "lets the cat out of the bag" (which Sillett, Preston, and Van Pelt already did, if people know where to look).

But for anyone seeking - I encourage them not to quit: don't give it a break. The reward is worth it, and the traffic from the moderate few who find the groves is not consequential.

why?

not sure why, but this thread should probably be banned because redwood titans sounds like a porn flick. Not sure if gardenweb wants to have a bunch of people searching in google for that term, and end up coming to the wrong place such as here.

How could you hide 350+ foot trees? Maybe they are in a valley with some dinosaurs and a giant gorilla...

Go have fun looking and taking pictures of Redwoods, what is the big deal. Why are you trying to drum up more attention?

Yeah, I want to see pics of bigfoot hiding among them

Thats true, just leave her them alone. mdvaden, didnt you say you found this grove a while ago?

ryan_tree ...

Yes, last winter. By chance. I invested a hard 6 hour bushwhack based on Preson's "facts" to find nothing. Then by chance, on the return, I stopped for 30 seconds to take a breather and just happened to see one of them (where it was not supposed to be).

Seems I forgot to hit submit this morning - my other message is missing, but ...

Greenman28 ... Good point.

Seems that a tree forum is a good fit for tree talk.

Noki ...

What I wrote this morning, was the the 350 footers are cloaked by other 300 to 350 footers.

In Prairie Creek, I saw the top of the second tallest redwood in the park from 1000 feet away. After walking 5 minutes into and under the canopy, no tops were visible. Not of the tall tree, nor of the short trees.

So not only do other fairly big titans cloak the largeness of even bigger trunks, but the tall groves cloak and conceal the tallest trees.

That's why the tallest trees are probably harder to find than the ones with the largest trunks.

Big tree hunters like Taylor or Atkins, often could not reach the tallest tips with a laser rangefinder.

I just read the story of Sillett & Taylor discovering the Grove of Titans that was published in the March/April 2007 issue of Orion magazine. One thing that doesn't make any sense is that they describe trudging through the woods from early in the morning in May until the stars are starting to shine and Venus is visible as they're looking at the Grove ot Titans. Then the end of the article says they made it out of the woods and "at nine oÂclock at night on the Day of Discovery, they were stuffing themselves with cheeseburgers at a CarlÂs Jr. in Crescent City". Hours and hours of walking and an hour or so later (when it's dark in May) they're eating a cheeseburger in town. Either that's the lie or they were actually near the road where they bummed a ride from "a man whom they found photographing the Stout Tree".

Concern about a stampede of newly informed visitors falling upon each tree is valid.