EAA UWO Dorm Room (Air Conditioned) For Sale

It's been a long time since I saw the movie. More recently, my son
graduated from Western Washington University in Bellingham. I've been to
Nooksack falls while we were visiting him out there, but didn't recognize
the falls (or the mountains) from the movie. Beautiful country out there,
but it don't look anything like PA.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"George Patterson" wrote in message
news:mLsCf.1237$5G.860@trnddc08...


Mt. Baker is in Washington.

George Patterson
Coffee is only a way of stealing time that should by rights belong to
your slightly older self.

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Bob Chilcoat" writes:


I'm not sure, but they were much more like the Rockies or the Grand Tetons
than the Appalachians. Huge, craggy, granite, snow-covered cliffs, above
the timberline in many cases. Nothing like I've ever seen in PA.


Ah, the "timberline" (I usually say "tree line"); one of the defining
features of a "mountain" IMHO. People have tried to tell me there are
mountains to the east, but the ones I've seen look like the stuff
called "foothills" around places where there are *real* mountains (I'd
been exposed to the alps and the rockies and the sierra nevada before
I saw any of these so-called "mountains" out east, so I may have
gotten a kinda exaggerated definition in my head :-)).

They are all mountains. Ours are just much more mature than your young
whippersnappers. :-)


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

They are all mountains. Ours are just much more mature than your young
whippersnappers. :-)


Matt

I guess then, that the mountain roots in southern Oklahoma that we refer to
as the Arbuckle mountains are reeeeally mature. Those mountains saw the
dinosaurs come and go and the southern 5 miles of the range were cut into a
plain by the surf of the sea that covered parts of Oklahoma and Texas at the
time. I believe the mountains in the movie "Oklahoma" were actually in
Arizona. Looked good on screen, though, and made a heckuva backdrop for a
young (and nubile) Shirley Jones. Actually I don't know if she was shot in
front of them, if so I probably wasn't looking at the geology anyway.

Harold Burton

In article ,
Ian Donaldson wrote:

Work, other people's work, is an intolerable idea to a cat. Can you picture
cats herding sheep or agreeing to pull a cart? They will not inconvenience
themselves to the slightest degree.
--Dr. Louis J. Camuti


Not _absoulutely_ true. We had a cat that was, on occasion, known to herd
dogs. When some 'stranger' made the mistake of trespassing on our property,
that is. It's rather funny to see a full-size standard poodle in full flight,
being pursued by a circa 20 lb tiger-striped American Shorthair. Especially
since the cat would abort the pursuit as soon as the dog crossed the property-
line, outgoing.

("kd5sak" wrote)
I guess then, that the mountain roots in southern Oklahoma that we refer
to as the Arbuckle mountains are reeeeally mature. Those mountains saw the
dinosaurs come and go and the southern 5 miles of the range were cut into
a plain by the surf of the sea that covered parts of Oklahoma and Texas at
the time.


3.7 BILLION year old rocks can be seen (walked on, touched) in Voyageurs
National Park, Blue Mound State Park and other places around Minnesota.
These are some of the oldest rocks on the planet. Dinosaurs - Ha!


Montblack :-)

Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains
like out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here
in Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies,
but they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban
legend, though....

Scott


Matt Whiting wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Bob Chilcoat" writes:


I'm not sure, but they were much more like the Rockies or the Grand
Tetons than the Appalachians. Huge, craggy, granite, snow-covered
cliffs, above the timberline in many cases. Nothing like I've ever
seen in PA.



Ah, the "timberline" (I usually say "tree line"); one of the defining
features of a "mountain" IMHO. People have tried to tell me there are
mountains to the east, but the ones I've seen look like the stuff
called "foothills" around places where there are *real* mountains (I'd
been exposed to the alps and the rockies and the sierra nevada before
I saw any of these so-called "mountains" out east, so I may have
gotten a kinda exaggerated definition in my head :-)).


They are all mountains. Ours are just much more mature than your young
whippersnappers. :-)


Matt

Scott wrote:

Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains
like out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here
in Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies,
but they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban
legend, though....

Scott


Matt Whiting wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Bob Chilcoat" writes:


I'm not sure, but they were much more like the Rockies or the Grand
Tetons than the Appalachians. Huge, craggy, granite, snow-covered
cliffs, above the timberline in many cases. Nothing like I've ever
seen in PA.




Ah, the "timberline" (I usually say "tree line"); one of the defining
features of a "mountain" IMHO. People have tried to tell me there are
mountains to the east, but the ones I've seen look like the stuff
called "foothills" around places where there are *real* mountains (I'd
been exposed to the alps and the rockies and the sierra nevada before
I saw any of these so-called "mountains" out east, so I may have
gotten a kinda exaggerated definition in my head :-)).



They are all mountains. Ours are just much more mature than your
young whippersnappers. :-)


Matt

No, I said exactly what you said. I live in PA and our mountains are
much older than the rockies and thus worn down much more.


Matt

Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains like
out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here in
Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies, but
they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban legend,
though....

Wouldn't that be a "rural legend"? :-)

I've always been fascinated by seeing the old "mountain ranges" as you fly
over Midwestern farmland at sunset. Here in Iowa it's easy to fly over
literally hundreds of square miles of cultivated land, broken only by the
road grid and some farm buildings. At this time of year, when the sunlight
seems exceptionally severe, and with the sunlight at the extreme angle of
sunset, you can see the remnants of gigantic ridges and long, rambling
ranges lurking just beneath the surface of that 18-inch-deep black soil.

Of course, it helps that all the snow is gone, for the moment.

This is a seldom-seen (and never, to my knowledge, discussed) sight,
probably because seeing it is so rare. Most of the year, it's completely
invisible beneath the snow, corn and soybeans, and they're only visible for
a few minutes as the sun goes down -- but it's really something to see when
the land is barren, as it is now.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains like
out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here in
Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies, but
they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban legend,
though....


Wouldn't that be a "rural legend"? :-)

No. Most rural folks have enough common sense to not fall for such
legends. :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:



No, I said exactly what you said. I live in PA and our mountains are
much older than the rockies and thus worn down much more.

Although never as high as the Rockies to start with.