tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post8982599666520717629..comments2024-03-17T18:37:36.377-07:00Comments on Geotripper: The "High Point" of my life (a meme) and What I'm ReadingGarry Hayeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-63844011839591756102009-02-05T19:15:00.000-08:002009-02-05T19:15:00.000-08:00Simple. I was using Wikipedia. They SOUNDED like t...Simple. I was using Wikipedia. They SOUNDED like they knew what they were talking about with the new datum. They reference http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=GT1811.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't sound right to say 14,505. It kinda gets imprinted on your mind permanently when you see the 14,494 written in stone on the summit.Garry Hayeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00531226195147986457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5211670216140060946.post-25104954706646631472009-02-05T19:07:00.000-08:002009-02-05T19:07:00.000-08:00Any idea where this discrepency comes from on Mt. ...Any idea where this discrepency comes from on Mt. Whitney's elevation? 14,505' (you and Wikipedia both say) versus 14,494' (which is what I've always heard, and what was posted at geology.com)?Callan Bentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15422791444429372896noreply@blogger.com