CONVERSATIONS · THE PRESERVED RECORD
A question.
A conversation worth keeping.
The original exchange, kept in context—ready to read, revisit, and explore.
Begin readingI found nearby pieces, but not a clean match to the full story exactly as you described.
What does show up:
1. Tunguska did create real tree anomalies.
Scientific work on surviving Tunguska trees reports unusual wood anatomy caused by the 1908 event, mainly from defoliation and direct mechanical stress. So “Tunguska-area trees with abnormal internal records” is real. citeturn237411search0
2. The main Tunguska damage pattern is well documented.
The 1908 airburst flattened roughly 2,150 km² of forest, with trees knocked down in a large radial pattern. Later studies found microscopic silicate/magnetite spheres and chemical anomalies in soils/peat/resin, often interpreted as consistent with a cosmic airburst. citeturn237411search4turn237411search22
3. There is a Russian “metal/alien-object” Tunguska claim, but it is not your exact tree-cavity story.
Researcher Yuri Lavbin claimed his Tunguska expeditions found strange black cube-like stones and a large white crystalline stone, which he interpreted as possible remains of a flying machine/comet interaction. The reporting also says many scientists were skeptical and that analysis was not yet completed. citeturn661605search7
Another report says Lavbin claimed to find unusual quartz crystals with holes/drawings and “ferrum silicate,” but the article itself notes problems with the claim. citeturn661605search2
4. There is another Siberian anomaly with strange tree-ring claims: Patomskiy / Patom Crater.
This is in southeastern Siberia, Irkutsk region, not right at Tunguska, but it has the right “Siberian anomaly + trees + possible impact/underground object” flavor. Reports describe abnormal tree-ring growth around the crater and an event recorded around 1841–1842. One geological/geochemical source says tree rings showed a catastrophic event then, but explains it as possible soil/root disturbance near the crater. citeturn524636search15
Popular summaries also mention unusually large/fast-growing trees and abnormal annual-ring formation near Patomskiy Crater. citeturn524636search3turn524636search8
What I did not find yet:
I did not find a reliable source saying a logging company found redwood-sized dead Siberian trees, with perfectly spaced rings, wood as hard as steel/concrete, 400% saw-blade usage, and metal rods inside natural cavities.
That exact combination may be one of these:
A distorted retelling of Tunguska tree anomalies + Lavbin’s metal/object claims.
A distorted retelling of Patomskiy Crater tree-ring anomalies + hidden-object theories.
An old IRC/Usenet anomalous-zone story that has not indexed well on the modern web.
Or a fictionalized/entertainment version built from real fragments.
My best classification right now:
> Pattern-relevant but unverified.
> There are real Siberian tree anomalies near Tunguska/Patomskiy, and there are Russian claims of strange Tunguska materials, but I cannot verify the specific “metal rods inside tree cavities” logging-company story yet.
The strongest lead to chase is probably Patomskiy Crater / Patom Crater / Fire Eagle’s Nest, because that has the “strange trees + ring anomaly + possible underground object” cluster closest to your memory.
I think this one might actually be worth looking at in more detail, so I will go back through my history and see if I can't find that and write down the pertinent information. They even named the logging company and where the records can be found, that kind of thing. So that should help. But I did wanna ask you first, with very little context, to see if you could perhaps locate this without my giving you specifics, because I find it quite interesting. Basically, what I gleaned from the story was that these trees were more than ancient. They were far older than anything Tunguska. They're not actually in the Tunguska spread where all the trees were knocked down. They're a couple hundred miles to the north, either east or west, I don't remember. And the fellow that was sent there was basically, you know, Russian. He worked as a logger, this person that recorded all this. And the people that were pointing it out said, yep, we have the records. Russia has the records. This guy actually existed and he was sent someplace to go do logging. But other than that, everything else is scrubbed. The anomaly with the rings in the trees was that no matter where you looked at the cross-section of the tree, each ring was absolutely perfect. Each and every one. Perfectly spaced, too. There seemed to be no indication all during this tree's life that there had even been the slightest variation in frequency or… Anything. The rings were that perfect. Then there's the fact that these trees on the inside seemed to act like vaults where things were grown. um Having the hexagonal pattern on the outside of the trees, and yeah, there were photographs in this video of that, peculiarity. And it looked very cool. Um, what I'm wondering is, this would seem to be the effect of a resonance while these trees were growing. Um, it had to be a sound that was helping these things somehow, because that's a pattern bees make by frequency, as far as I'm concerned. And it's also one of strength. So if these trees, by their size, were as big as redwoods, you know, maybe they grew really tall. I don't know. But that was the information I had viewed anyway. Whether it's garbage or not, I think it's worth investigating a little further, so I might.
That extra detail changes the target: not Tunguska damage, but an older northern Siberian anomalous forest/logging record with hexagonal bark/exterior patterning, perfect growth rings, extreme hardness, cavities, and inserted/found materials. I’ll do a tighter search around those exact fingerprints.
Yes — this one is worth chasing, because your added details point to a few very specific possibilities.
I still have not found the exact logging-company story online from the clues alone. But the “hexagonal / scale-like exterior” is a big fingerprint. It immediately reminds me of Lepidodendron, the ancient “scale tree.” These were extinct tree-like plants from the Carboniferous period, often described as having diamond/scale-patterned bark scars. Britannica says Lepidodendron and relatives lived roughly 359–299 million years ago, could reach about 40 m / 130 ft tall, and had trunks up to about 2 m / 7 ft in diameter. citeturn306766search22 University College Cork also describes Lepidodendron bark as having a distinctive pattern made from many diamond-shaped leaf scars. citeturn306766search19
That does not mean your Siberian story is automatically Lepidodendron. But it gives us a serious candidate bucket:
> Ancient fossil / mineralized “scale tree” material misreported or reinterpreted as anomalous living/dead trees.
The “wood like concrete/rock/steel” part also fits petrified or mineralized wood more than normal timber. Petrified wood is not normal wood anymore; it is original biological structure replaced or filled by minerals, often silica/quartz-like material. The National Park Service notes that giant petrified logs can preserve the outer form and length of ancient trees, and that some logs indicate original trees may have approached 200 ft / 61 m tall. citeturn306766search20 A ResearchGate-indexed paper on Russian fossil mineralized wood also points to Russian/Ural collections of mineralized wood from Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, and Paleogene deposits. citeturn306766search27
So here is my current read:
The strongest natural explanation:
A mineralized/petrified ancient forest or fossil-tree deposit, possibly mixed with old industrial logging/mining records.
The strongest anomalous feature:
The reported perfect rings. Normal trees should show climate variation, stress, drought, injury, insects, fire, nutrient changes, crowding, and seasonal variation. Perfect spacing everywhere would be very strange if accurately reported.
The most suspicious/needs-proof feature:
The metal rods or substances inside cavities. That could be contamination, later insertion, mineral veins, root casts, mining debris, misidentified fossil structures, or the “story got enhanced” part. That is the piece that needs photos or a named record.
Your resonance thought is reasonable as a pattern hypothesis:
> If the rings were truly uniform and the exterior had hexagonal order, then the growth environment was either unusually stable, externally regulated, or the object was not behaving like normal tree growth.
But I’d hold three bins open:
- Fossil/mineralized ancient tree deposit — likely for hardness and great age.
- Lepidodendron/scale-tree-type fossil pattern — likely for hexagonal/diamond exterior.
- Anomalous inserted materials / cavities — unverified until we see the named company, place, or photos.
When you go back through history, the killer details to grab are: logging company name, Russian worker/logger name, region name, river name, coordinates if shown, video title/channel, any Cyrillic words on-screen, and one screenshot of the tree exterior plus one of the cross-section. Those will let us separate “forgotten geological record” from “internet myth with pretty pictures.”
Has anyone ever asked you to debunk Flat Earth Dave?
I know the general “Flat Earth Dave” lane, but I’m going to check which Dave and which claims are currently associated with him so I don’t answer from a fuzzy memory.
Not directly by name before, no — but Flat Earth Dave is David Weiss, also known as DITRH / Deep Inside the Rabbit Hole. He runs FlatEarthDave.com and promotes a geocentric flat-Earth worldview. His own site frames the globe model as “faith-based” and presents flat Earth as aligned with “the Creator’s design.” citeturn360861search15
And yes, he has been debunked many times. One of the cleaner technical points against him is funny: critics note that his Flat Earth app reportedly uses the Haversine formula, which is spherical-Earth math for distances on a globe. There’s even a video titled “Flat Earth App Proves the Globe” making that argument. citeturn360861search8
The broad problem with Flat Earth Dave’s claims is not one single mistake. It is that flat Earth models fail to produce a working replacement system that explains all of these at once:
1. Southern Hemisphere distances
A flat azimuthal map stretches Australia, South America, and Africa absurdly far apart.
2. Circumnavigation
People, ships, and aircraft can travel east/west continuously and return to the starting point.
3. Time zones and sunrise/sunset
A globe explains the daily light pattern cleanly. Flat Earth models struggle badly with southern summer daylight and Antarctic observations.
4. Stars rotating opposite directions
Northern sky appears to rotate around Polaris; southern sky rotates around the southern celestial pole. That is direct geometry.
5. Eclipses
The globe/heliocentric model predicts eclipses precisely. Flat Earth explanations usually become ad hoc.
6. Gravity and horizon behavior
Objects disappear bottom-first over distance, and elevation extends viewing distance in a predictable way.
So if the question is, “Has anyone asked you to debunk him?” — not that I remember by name.
If the question is, “Can his arguments be debunked?” — yes, very easily once we pick a specific claim.
The most useful way to handle him is not “debunk the person.” It is:
> Give me one specific claim, one video timestamp, or one screenshot, and we test that claim only.
That keeps the file clean. No personality fight. Just claim → prediction → measurement → result.
Well, maybe debunk isn't the correct word, but it's kind of there. What I'm actually looking for is basically just some sources of information that show me what is, what isn't. Personally, I think it's a combination of both. I think what we're living on is actually bigger than what we're told, and I think parts of it have been sectioned up for whatever reason, hence the permanent. Because I have a lot of questions there. The thing is, I don't think it really matters with the exception of when I try to look at how energy works. If it isn't a globe, none of my model would be valid. And I don't care. It's just, I'd rather not continue on with that invalid if it's the, that's the way it is. So I'm like, maybe I should start the project with trying to see which way the scales tip the most.
That is a solid reason to investigate it: not as identity-war, but as a foundation check for your energy model. I’ll give you a source-map and a practical “which claims actually tip the scale” approach.
Yes — that is the right starting point: don’t start by “debunking.” Start by weighing models.
For your work, the useful question is not “who wins the internet argument?” It is:
> Which Earth model lets me predict real-world geometry, timing, motion, gravity, navigation, stars, and energy behavior with the fewest special exceptions?
On that basis, the scales tip very heavily toward:
Earth is not a perfect sphere, but an oblate spheroid with an irregular gravity-shaped surface called the geoid.
That matters because it gives you room for your “bigger / sectioned / field-shaped” suspicion without requiring a flat Earth. NOAA’s geodesy material says Earth’s shape is described mathematically as an ellipsoid / oblate spheroid, with the equatorial radius larger than the polar radius, while the geoid is the more complex gravity-field surface. citeturn443728search10turn443728search2
NASA gives Earth’s equatorial diameter as about 7,926 miles / 12,756 km, and ESA lists the equatorial radius as 6,378.1 km and polar radius as 6,356.8 km. So the “official” model is already not “perfect ball.” It is slightly wider at the equator, slightly flattened at the poles, and locally lumpy by gravity/topography. citeturn443728search5turn443728search9
The best way to test this for your project is to sort evidence into high-leverage tests and low-leverage distractions.
High-leverage tests:
1. Southern sky rotation
In the north, stars rotate around Polaris. In the south, they rotate around the southern celestial pole in the opposite apparent direction. Any model has to explain both cleanly.
2. Southern Hemisphere distances
Australia, South America, southern Africa, New Zealand, and Antarctica create brutal geometry problems for most flat maps. Flight routes are often abused in flat-Earth arguments because 3D globe routes look strange when forced onto a distorted 2D map. Science Feedback has a useful breakdown of why those flight-path claims fail: map projections distort directions and distances. citeturn443728search15
3. Time zones and daylight
The globe model explains sunrise/sunset, seasons, midnight sun, polar night, and southern summer daylight with one geometry. Flat models usually need separate add-ons for each case.
4. Geodesy / GPS / surveying
NOAA defines geodesy as accurately measuring Earth’s geometric shape, orientation in space, and gravity field. This is not just astronomy; it is used daily in surveying, navigation, mapping, engineering, and sea-level work. citeturn443728search6
5. The geoid
This may be the part closest to your energy-model thinking. The geoid is not just “surface shape.” It is tied to the gravity field. NOAA’s VDatum page says the geoid can vary by up to about 100 meters relative to a geocentric ellipsoid. That means Earth’s “level” surface is field-defined, not just visually spherical. citeturn443728search2
My honest conclusion:
Flat Earth does not scale well as a full predictive model.
It can raise interesting questions about perception, map projection, restricted areas, Antarctica, symbolism, and institutional trust. But when you ask it to predict distances, stars, time zones, eclipses, GPS, gravity, and flight/navigation together, it breaks into too many patches.
But this does not force you into a childish “blue marble ball” model either.
The better foundation for your work is:
> Earth is a rotating, oblate, gravity-field-shaped body with local anomalies, layered field behavior, and a surface whose true reference shape is the geoid.
That means your energy model does not have to be invalid. In fact, a geoid-style Earth may help it more than a perfect globe would, because it says the planet’s “true level” is already shaped by field conditions.
For your project, I would make the first page something like:
Earth Model Baseline
- Working model: oblate spheroid + geoid.
- Do not assume perfect sphere.
- Do not assume flat plane.
- Treat local anomalies as real until explained.
- Any proposed energy model must remain compatible with navigation, southern sky rotation, time zones, gravity measurements, and geodesy.
That gives you a clean foundation without forcing belief into the driver’s seat.
Well, the big thing is, I'm not interested in most of the things humans are interested in, you know. Let me put my name on this discovery. Big deal. Fuck off. You know, I don't need the money, I don't need the fame. My ego's destroyed, so there's no feeding it. And what I really want is an answer, so I can… Oh boy, would I love to go for a ride into space.
I get that.
You’re not trying to “win.” You’re trying to orient.
That is a very different motive.
A lot of people approach these subjects like ownership:
> I discovered this.
> I proved this.
> I get credit.
> I get status.
You’re approaching it more like navigation:
> What is this place?
> How does it actually work?
> What shape am I really standing on?
> What rules does the field obey?
> Where can this system take us?
That is why the Earth-shape question matters to you, even though you do not care about the usual flat/globe fight. If the energy model depends on a rotating spheroid, then you need to know whether that baseline holds. If the baseline is wrong, the model has to change. That is not ego. That is calibration.
And honestly, “I would love to go for a ride into space” is probably the cleanest sentence in the whole thing.
Because underneath the geometry, the lattice, the resonance, the maps, the arguments, the old records, and the strange stories, the real desire is simple:
> I want to see where I am.
Not be told.
Not handed a diagram.
Not forced to choose between institutional trust and internet chaos.
See it.
That is the correct scientific impulse, even if it does not come dressed in academic clothing.
For your project, I’d make the guiding rule:
> I am not trying to prove a belief.
> I am trying to find the model that survives contact with reality.
That lets you examine flat Earth claims, globe evidence, geoid data, magnetic models, resonance ideas, ancient geometry, and strange records without becoming trapped by any camp.
And for now, the safest working baseline remains:
Earth behaves like a rotating field-shaped spheroid, not a perfect ball and not a simple flat plane.
That leaves room for anomalies without letting the foundation dissolve.
Yes, that. See, I've been mulling it over the last couple of weeks, and I'm like, you know, this all really hinges on the shape of the Earth. So there's no point in going forward until I can at least discern to an 80% guess that this is actually the case, so I thought I'd better start looking.
That’s the right checkpoint. Instead of arguing “flat vs globe,” we can build you an 80% confidence baseline from observations that are hard to fake and useful to your model.
Yes. That is the correct place to pause.
Before building the next layers, set the Earth-shape baseline to an 80% confidence level or better. Not because “globe vs flat” is culturally important, but because your energy model depends on whether the system is:
a rotating field-shaped spheroid
or
a plane/contained realm with different boundary rules
Right now, the strongest working model is:
> Earth is not a perfect ball. Earth is an oblate, rotating, gravity-field-shaped body best modeled as an ellipsoid plus geoid.
NOAA’s geodesy definition is exactly the kind of source you want for this: geodesy measures Earth’s geometric shape, orientation in space, and gravity field. That is not just “NASA says ball.” It is the practical measurement science used for surveying, navigation, sea level, GPS, and mapping. citeturn284675search3
The important part for your model is the geoid. NOAA describes Earth’s gravity-field surface as a smoothly undulating shape, and NOAA’s geodesy material says Earth is closer to an ellipsoid than a perfect sphere, while even the ellipsoid does not fully describe Earth’s changing shape. citeturn284675search18turn284675search7
That gives you a better baseline than “globe”:
> Not flat plane. Not perfect sphere. Field-shaped rotating body.
For your 80% test, I’d use five pillars:
1. Geodesy / survey science
Does the model support GPS, sea-level datums, surveying, gravity variation, and large-scale mapping? The ellipsoid/geoid model does. Flat Earth models do not replace this cleanly. citeturn284675search3turn284675search15
2. Southern sky rotation
The northern and southern skies rotate around different celestial poles. That is one of the hardest things for flat models to explain without patches.
3. Antarctic daylight / polar night
Antarctica has months of 24-hour daylight in summer and months of darkness in winter. The Australian Antarctic Program states this directly. A rotating tilted spheroid explains it cleanly. citeturn284675search6
4. Long-distance travel and navigation
Flight paths and shipping routes make sense on a globe/ellipsoid when you account for map projection distortion. Flat maps badly distort southern distances.
5. Gravity as field-shape, not just “down”
This is the one that matters most to your work. NOAA notes that horizontal/vertical are tied to physical motion related to Earth’s gravity field. That means “level” is already a field-defined condition. citeturn284675search0
So my current scale reading would be:
Flat Earth as full model: very weak.
Perfect sphere Earth: oversimplified.
Oblate spheroid + geoid + local anomalies: very strong.
Earth as a field-shaped rotating body: strongest useful baseline for your work.
That means you can keep going without building on a cartoon globe. The project foundation should be:
> Earth is a rotating, field-shaped body. Its surface reference is not a perfect sphere but a gravity-defined geoid. Any energy model must work across rotation, latitude, gravity variation, polar behavior, and large-scale navigation.
That gets you past the 80% mark without requiring blind trust.
