What is the controversy the author found? MacFarland said in the first report that the assessment was not complete and maybe the tree could be saved. Later inspection showed that it could not be saved. No arborist is going to write off a tree, 400 y.o. or not, without hard data that it was an unreasonable risk. What the heck is seismic tomography with regard to trees? I found acoustic tomography for testing trees. Can work but depends on equipment and I assume the operator (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6201721/). Exactly how does an aerial assessment determine extent of rot throughout the tree. Release all three reports detailing findings and the basis of the finding. Per most (all) arborist sources I found, core samples are the definitive test for internal tree rot. Not seismic, acoustic or drones. Stop trying to discredit an outstanding arborist to sidestep reality. The City will be getting a second opinion. If the conclusion significantly disagrees with MacFarlan then the game is back on. If not, then please stop maligning MacFarland. Buy a piece of the Meeker Oak and plant it some place.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
