The Strange Theory That Mountains Are Trees

<h4>

The Strange Theory That Mountains Are Trees</h4>

There are over 3 trillion individual trees on earth, some of which can live for thousands of years. At the same time, around 25% of Earth’s land surface is made up of mountains. These two statistics would usually be thought of as unrelated… but, for some, they’re very much linked. What’s your verdict on the theory that mountains are trees?

When we gaze out across the many landscapes of this planet it’s perhaps clear that Earth holds many secrets from us. This 4.5-billion-year-old world has certainly been around much longer than mere humans have. But, still, you’d think by now we’d have got the basics right. Trees are trees and mountains are mountains, aren’t they? Well, not according to one controversial idea…

This is Unveiled, and today we’re exploring the strange theory that actually mountains… are trees. 

By now, the flat earth conspiracy theory has arguably become the most widely recognised conspiracy theory of all, with certain celebrities and high-profile figures pedaling its various eye-catching claims. What might be somewhat surprising, however, is that the theorists themselves can’t quite wholly agree on the layout of the flat earth. For example, while some believe the Earth to be a disc that’s walled in on all sides by massive ice sheets in Antarctica, which are guarded by none other than NASA… others think that really there’s no edge to flat earth at all, and that the plane of earth extends on and on forever. As strange a theory as Flat Earth in general is in our modern times, though, it has yet managed to give rise to an even stranger one.

In 2016, a video appeared on a now-deleted YouTube account arguing for the certainly unusual “No Forests on Flat Earth” theory, and it gained some initial popularity. Since then, the ideas within it have become key to some flat earth beliefs. The astonishing theory argues that trees - normal, everyday trees - are actually only bushes and shrubbery, and shadows of their once much larger and greater, former selves. Real trees of long ago - as per the theory - were massive structures that towered into the sky, miles and miles high. And the forests we have now aren’t real forests, as the real forests no longer exist. That’s the idea, anyway… so, what’s going on?

The basic gist of the “no forests” suggestion is seemingly that the Earth we know today is nowhere near as majestic (or as massive) as it once was. In some ways, this might be considered an understandable position to take. Scientists and researchers, even in the mainstream, do agree that Earth has at times been a much more abundant place than it is now. With wholly different, and often bigger life forms, to the point that if we (today) were to somehow be transported back in time… we might mistake ancient Earth for some other, unrecognizable, alien planet. But if there were once giant trees in amongst all this, as the “no forests” idea suggests, then where are they now? Here the theory makes another surprising claim… that the visible remains of those massive trees from long ago can still be found today all around us. We just call them mountains. 

According to the theory, which (importantly) is thoroughly unsupported by conventional science or research, mountains are evidence that trees used to be towering structures because mountains are the remnants of those ancient trees. Mountains are like huge, sprawling, roughly cut and jagged tree stumps, so it’s said. The old trees, the ones that no longer exist, were some forty or fifty miles tall… with trunks multiple miles wide. Unsurprisingly, it’s said that they totally dominated the landscape. Our mountains are, then, merely the corpses of these trees, the leftovers… with the “no forests” theory claiming that there’s evidence for this, if we look at mountains closely enough. 

The original video, now removed from YouTube, showed various images of famous mountains and monuments… and compared them side-by-side with tree trunks. Uluru in Australia, for example, is a large (and somewhat flat) island mountain that, the theory tells us, looks extraordinarily like a massive tree stump. Uluru was a tree, so the claim goes, but its destruction has turned it into what it is now. Elsewhere, Devil’s Tower, a large, steep formation with almost vertical sides, in Wyoming, USA, allegedly looks like a tree that was cut down before it could grow to full height… while the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, an iconic monument of basalt columns, is purported evidence toward a dramatically alternate history, too, with it claimed that the Causeway’s hexagonal pattern must be linked to organic life. Overall, the theory asks for quite a leap of faith or foolishness, depending on your view… imploring that we look at these monuments (and others) not as we’ve come to know them, but as fallen trees. Long dead, but once magnificent (and giant) fallen trees. 

An immediate realization is perhaps the clear and obvious difference between the wood of the trees and the rock of our mountains, however. But here, too, the theory makes another astounding claim. Because, according to the “No Forests” point of view, rocks don’t actually exist either. All the rocks we see in our day to day lives - from miniscule pebbles to massive cliff faces - are apparently nothing more than rubble left behind by the ancient trees. If you’ve ever held a rock in your hand, you’ve actually held part of the body of a long-dead tree... is the general idea. Understandably (and while this is by no means the only aspect of the theory that they’ve taken issue with) scientists, academics, researchers, most of everyone else can immediately see various and huge problems here. The inherent, real-world differences between rocks and trees are, in reality… vast. But, in this retelling of how the world works, they’re one and the same thing. Again, if plain flat earth theory wasn’t strange enough already, then this extension of it certainly is!

Finally, the last part of the “No Forests” theory attempts to explain what happened to the ancient trees which, if they did exist, must clearly have gone through a truly catastrophic deforestation event, to bring Earth to be almost entirely rid of them now. It’s said, by advocates, that there are a couple of different possibilities - including a great flood, or even that their destruction was the work of a race of long-lost giants. Another suggestion is that there was, at some time, a massive fire on Earth, that ravaged the landscape and burned down the trees, leaving just the “stumps” (or mountains) we see today. 

Probably the most confusing answer offered, though, is that the trees were destroyed in nuclear warfare. Waged during a time long before nuclear weapons were invented, as per the conventional history of humankind. More broadly, the idea that humanity is (or was) at fault in some way, even without nuclear weapons, is common. Perhaps these ancient, miles-high forests were cut down by humans for energy, during an episode (or even a whole era) that’s otherwise been completely lost to history. And, if not for energy, then maybe it was to prevent the trees from breaking through the heavenly dome… that some versions of flat earth theory insist is encasing the world we live in. There have been a number of possibilities floated as to what might’ve befallen the trees… but perhaps here, more so than at any other point, is where the theory falls in on itself.

Because, to recap the basics: the idea is that there are no forests on earth because real trees don’t exist anymore. The trees we have today are tiny shrubs compared to their giant ancestors… but all that’s left of them (the ancestors) are our mountains, which are actually the remainder of massive tree trunks. Suffice to say, this isn’t a claim that’s in any way supported by conventional scientific research. And, what’s more, it has even caused some division in the flat earth movement itself, with many flat earthers distancing themselves from it. 

Perhaps the only shred of scientifically backed truth we can glean from the whole thing is that it’s generally agreed that Earth was once a lot greener than it is now, with much of the world map hosting more than double the forest land that it does today… a change brought on by the urbanization of humankind.

We live in cities now. Towns and villages, with commuter links, air travel, and far fewer green spaces. Times have certainly changed and (depending on the view you take) maybe for better or worse. But gigantic trees that reached miles into the sky, to the point that mountains - those immense natural structures - are mere leftovers of a time gone by? It’s an entertaining idea, but it’s not one that science takes all that seriously. Still, that’s the strange theory that mountains are trees.