Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 09:19 PM

they are still not standing at the base of it. its probably still a good ways off.

thus, those features are bigger than they appear, making the whole thing bigger than it appears.

They chose that pic to get as much in as they could. standing right at the base, there was probably some large outcrops that obscure the upper portions

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 09:22 PM

they are still not standing at the base of it. its probably still a good ways off

Um, according to the website I got it from, they are stading at the base.

Also, they have to be standing at the base, because they haven't climbed anything. It appears they walked up to the wall of the cliff.

thus, those features are bigger than they appear

What "features?"

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

PopeInTheWoods · 01-21-2002, 09:26 PM

ROTFLMAO! Either this is one of the funniest threads I've ever seen, or I'm giving some people way too much credit....

Andy (PITW)

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 09:29 PM

What could possibly be funny?

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 09:32 PM

If you where actually at the base, this is what you would see:

Nothing. a big-assed overhang.

Thus those guys arent right at the bottom, they are a ways away so that they can see most of the thing in the picture.

and 'features' are things like cracks and whatnot.

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 09:34 PM

Lord,

Well, I can't see the top of the cliff in the picture you provide, so I'm still skeptical.

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 09:36 PM

Think of it as good practice while all the YEC's are off and about.

Secular Elation · 01-21-2002, 09:37 PM

A good practice of what?

Christopher Lord · 01-21-2002, 09:37 PM

ok, here we go:

this is the clincher

PopeInTheWoods · 01-21-2002, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secular Elation:
<strong>What could possibly be funny?</strong>

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....

Andy (PITW)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-21-2002, 09:19 PM	#21
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	they are still not standing at the base of it. its probably still a good ways off. thus, those features are bigger than they appear, making the whole thing bigger than it appears. They chose that pic to get as much in as they could. standing right at the base, there was probably some large outcrops that obscure the upper portions

01-21-2002, 09:22 PM	#22
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	they are still not standing at the base of it. its probably still a good ways off Um, according to the website I got it from, they are stading at the base. Also, they have to be standing at the base, because they haven't climbed anything. It appears they walked up to the wall of the cliff. thus, those features are bigger than they appear What "features?" [ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

01-21-2002, 09:26 PM	#23
PopeInTheWoods Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Rochester NY USA Posts: 4,318	ROTFLMAO! Either this is one of the funniest threads I've ever seen, or I'm giving some people way too much credit.... Andy (PITW)

01-21-2002, 09:29 PM	#24
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	What could possibly be funny?

01-21-2002, 09:32 PM	#25
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	If you where actually at the base, this is what you would see: Nothing. a big-assed overhang. Thus those guys arent right at the bottom, they are a ways away so that they can see most of the thing in the picture. and 'features' are things like cracks and whatnot.

01-21-2002, 09:34 PM	#26
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Lord, Well, I can't see the top of the cliff in the picture you provide, so I'm still skeptical.

01-21-2002, 09:36 PM	#27
Christopher Lord Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 808	Think of it as good practice while all the YEC's are off and about.

01-21-2002, 09:37 PM	#28
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	A good practice of what?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.