Secular Elation

I apologize, but it still looks to be the same height as the Empire State bulding.

Perhaps I may be geting on your nerves by now, so I'll just give up and say, "Yes, I now believe that it is truly 3,500 feet high."

Secular Elation

Uh, ahem, err... I'll explain later when I figure out if my original interpretation was correct. Right now it doesn't look so good....

You're worrying me. What makes it suddenly not so funny? Is it because you think my judgement is so stupid that it's not even funny?

Christopher Lord

ok, just so that everyone is clear, those are the shadows of whole clouds on the face, and full-sized trees at the base (the same ones in the earlier pics)

the big-assed whole in the middle is where you see pictures of rock-climbers swinging from an invisible roof far above.

its big.

end of story

PopeInTheWoods

Please, you shouldn't be worried by anything I might think or post. I'm just a lurker here on S&S who, after one beer too many, thought something was funny that really wasn't. I should have just kept my drunken thoughts to myself.

Andy (PITW)

Someone7

Perhaps this will help you.

Christopher Lord

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

now thats clever

Vorkosigan

Nothing. a big-assed overhang.

What a terrible thing to say about that climber!

Michael

Monkeybot

OK, I agree with Andy. This thread is funny. That's not intended to be demeaning in any way, shape or form, but merely a statement of the fact that I'm LMAO.

Besides, you know how they say the cameras always add 10 pounds.

Monkeybot

OK, now compare with Mt. Everest:



Or compare Mt. Everest with Mt. Kilimanjaro:

Everest:



vs. Kilimanjaro:



Doesn't Mt. Kilimanjaro look so much more enormous?

I'm not trying to throw water on your parade, but I wouldn't base an absolute opinion on something's height from a photograph.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>

Secular Elation

Those "trees" look like bushes.