|
Currently on hiatus :-(
 S&W in German/auf DeutschGaia (my fantasy comic) Scarlet (my science fantasy comic) |
|
| Sandra and Woo is supported by our patron BorgLord. Thank you very much! |
|
I have a little riddle for you: How high do you think is the rock/boulder/hill/mountain in the center of this photo? Give your guess in the comment section. I will post the answer next week.
Sandra and Woo by Oliver Knörzer is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. See the About page for details.
Privacy Policy | Impressum | © 2008 – 2024 Oliver Knörzer
Six inches.
given the size of the scree slope, my guess is around 600 vertical feet.
Really small, like less than a foot. Let’s say four inches. Looks to me like it’s underwater, and that plant-y thing is a thing growing at the floor of the lake or whatever this is.
Guessing that the smallest discretely visible rock near the base is on the order of 4 inches (i.e. 100 mm in real units 🙂 I make it between 30 and 100 ft high.
About 5 1/2 feet.
~1500 feet? Reminds of the Incredible Hulk I. Little slide canyon.
I’ll guess 80-100 feet, assuming no trickery is involved. 😉 🙂
6 meters ^_^
I’m gonna go with “less than 0,5 meters”.
*Observes the tiny river off in the right side of the photo* Hmmmmmm. Uh, I’d say that thing is a hill between 500 and 1200 feet tall?
2o meters.
Around 750 feet
I’m thinking about 50 feet.
around 200 meters
150m
70-80 m from the scree;
~100-150 m from base (not seen).
Scree is too detailed for it to be much higher; a tree and flecks of snow eliminate optical illusion.
I’m guessing around 6 and a half feet!
My guess is 72 meters. However my suspicion is that I may be guessing low.
Gonna guess 100 metres.
150-200m
About 10 meters / 30+ feet, I’d say.
300 meters / 1000 feet i thin its a long distends picture so he is bigger than you think
Trick question. This is actually one half of a pair of dentures that someone went to town on with some sculpi, paint, and wargame terrain.
I’ll guess… 63m
Would all depend on where you’re measuring from, sea level? the lowest visible point of the rock? the bottom of the rock in question? im gonna go with visible point and say in re region of 40-50m
8 – 9 meters
It’s 58 to 64 times the size of the rocks next to it (depending on where you start counting)
The rocks looks like they are around 27 cm high, so the mountain is 1566cm to 1728cm big, or 15.66m to 17.28m. In feet that is around 51.4 to 56.7 feet.
if the rocks are half a meter it’s 29 to 32 meters, or around 95.1 to 105 feet
10 to 20 feet.
Hmm, but if I had to choose an exact number, I’d probably have to go with 15 feet. May as well choose the average.
Please forget my previous answer, because upon averaging all of the answers that everyone else has given, I can accurately guess the height as 312 Foot tall.
That’s about as accurate of a number as you’re going to get, until there’s been more guesses.
Now where do I claim my prize?
Judging by the surrounding gravel, I’d say 12-15 meters.
my bet is 5 cm
Please put a banana peel for scale
300 cubits.
I’m going to say 10 feet – maybe the tree is larger from forced perspective?
30 meters
4 meters
Looking closely at the picture, I get the feeling it’s really small! I say one inch.
Three thousand meters, in case.
175 meters 🙂
a few meters I think, maybe like 7 or 8
The rocks in the picture are not worn smooth, so the region sees very little weathering. (Rain would erode the rocks on the ground into smoother shapes.)
The photo seems to be taken right around dusk or dawn because there seems to be a light “halo” capping the “mountains”; the band suggests that this mountain face is looking at a wide valley.
If the tree is to be taken for fact, that species of tree seems to be more suited for all year growth instead of seasonal leafing due to its growing needle bunches suggesting it is coniferous.
I don’t believe those white streaks as snow or else we would see it over more of the mountains in larger patches. This suggests that the season is warm for the region when the photo was taken.
I don’t see a river. Please elaborate where this river is.
If the picture is to be taken as fact, then my guess is that this rock is, from the visible evidence, eighty to ninety meters tall (80m-90m) and its height from sea level is near eighteen hundred meters (1800m).
I’d say it’s 132meters and 2cm.
I would say…. 25 feet or so.
Looking at the photo (assuming a 50 mm normal lens on the camera) and the apparent size of some of the larger bolder’s at the base (which appear around 6ft long in one)… I’d venture a guess at about 300 vertical feet.
between 1 and 3 feet.
I just held up a ruler against my computer screen and and proved conclusively that the outcrop is exactly 67mm high. 🙂
15 meters.
This reminds me of the Vasquez Rocks we got here in California off the El Cajon Pass that was on an episode of Star Trek back in the day. If it is similar, I’d say 150 – 200 ft.
@ NixieSeal:
I agree. The small river in the background belies the photo. The boulder is close up, and the mountains behind are quite far away. Looks like a trick of perspective. I am not sure how big the boulder is, but I am pretty sure that it is much smaller than the distant mountains.
800 feet?