Machu Pichu is amazing but it still ain't as grand as the Grand Canyon. Do you all understand how frigging enormous the Grand Canyon is? 227 miles long, over a mile deep, 18 miles wide, plus it's millions of years old.

Grand Canyon - 3
Machu Pichu - 3

Canyon.. also, LOL at eiffel tower.

Grand Canyon - 5
Machu Pichu - 3

I've visted Machu Picchu twice and it's the most amazing place I've ever seen. The lost city of the Incas is around 2,500 metres above sea level. The place has a spiritual feel that kind of stays with you forever. It also takes hours to get there in a rickety train which all adds to the experience. Frownland's picture doesn't really demonstrate how extreme it is, for example if you walk to the edge it's a sheer drop on most sides, it's a little city built on a precipice and **** knows how many years it must've taken to build it.

Grand Canyon- 5
Machu Picchu- 4

Man, it's been beaten into the ground and made the Canyon's bitch: do you have to rub it in?

Then again, it is French, so go ahead! :thumb:

The problem is that nearly every landmark in Europe can't compete with what the America's, Africa or Asia has in terms of being spectacular. All Europe's got are landmarks made out of iron, cooper or stone and a couple of crooked or dilapidated buildings.

Beautiful mountains and ancient civilization remnants>>>some big ass hole.

I take back my previous statement about man made things always losing to natural things.. I don't have an appreciation for modern buildings, but things like machu picchu are amazing. I still voted for the canyon because it's just massive, and overwhelming, but given the choice I think I'd rather visit machu picchu.

The Blue Hole of Belize

What's inside?

http://www.facethewind.com/chase2004/may04_twine1.jpg

Howdy doody that's one big ball of string.

Canyon 5
Incas 5

I've been to the Grand Canyon, and while it's a really cool place, it doesn't hold the same fascination as the ruins of an ancient civilization.