GoogleMaps: bad job at hiding 'sensitive information' guys.... (picture)

Originally posted by davion

Did the "pull out high dollar graphic designers" throw you for a loop or something, I don't understand.

You're basically agreeing with what he originally had to say, no they don't need graphic artists because all they are doing is clone stamping trees and quickly covering up areas.

Actually, I DO get his point, Davion. His argument is null and void that you would even need or want a high dollar graphics person to do a better job masking the terrain. Even a typist could do a better job - literally. The fact that these individuals are putting trees in the middle of roads equates to borderline retarded. This is apparently okay with you.

Even more retarded that you completely missed or ignored that part of my argument in an attempt to make graphic designers look foolish. Remember: Mithfen has to take 'workshops' to learn to use logic. I hope I have made my self clear this time. I'd be happy to use bigger, simpler words if necessary.

reply to post by Bigfoot209th


That's a legitimate cover there. They are simply doing what they do to sensative areas in the states. However, the first picture with the obvious copying, if indeed it is true, is something else. That is blatant manipulation to hide something.

Originally posted by NightVision
Actually, I DO get his point, Davion. His argument is null and void that you would even need or want a high dollar graphics person to do a better job masking the terrain. Even a typist could do a better job - literally. The fact that these individuals are putting trees in the middle of roads equates to borderline retarded. This is apparently okay with you.

Even more retarded that you completely missed or ignored that part of my argument in an attempt to make graphic designers look foolish. Remember: Mithfen has to take 'workshops' to learn to use logic. I hope I have made my self clear this time. I'd be happy to use bigger, simpler words if necessary.

Oh? What did I miss? All you've pretty much said is "Well, you're stupid!", do you want a tissue? You've attempted to assassinate his character even though he's pretty much made it clear as to why Google does a bad job of editing imagery: They don't care.

I don't have to ignore anything to make you look foolish, you do that perfectly fine on your own. Just like when you attempted to be smug and condescending and say that the White House wasn't censored in the various mapping applications on the internet used by Google, but you apparently have no problem skirting over that issue for the last week or so to save face.



[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by davion

Oh? What did I miss? All you've pretty much said is "Well, you're stupid!", do you want a tissue? You've attempted to assassinate his character even though he's pretty much made it clear as to why Google does a bad job of editing imagery: They don't care.

I don't supposed you've ever entertained the notion that to hide something you have to make it inconspicuous? Trees in the middle of roads = stupid. Its just a fact. I'm sorry if you dont agree. Maybe you two should work together. The OP began the insult hurling by basically saying we're all nutters. He had it coming. If you sympathize with him, maybe you should work for Google. They're amateurs. Period. I dont need to prove this anymore since their work speaks for itself.

I don't have to ignore anything to make you look foolish, you do that perfectly fine on your own. Just like when you attempted to be smug and condescending and say that the White House wasn't censored in the various mapping applications on the internet used by Google, but you apparently have no problem skirting over that issue for the last week or so to save face.

No need to skirt an issue that already been resolved. The claim was made that the WhiteHouse was censored on GoogleMaps. I proved him wrong. End of story. Anything else?

Now are you going to contribute anything to this thread other than your sympathy for poor workmanship, or are we going to keep at this charade?



[edit on 29-8-2008 by NightVision]

Originally posted by NightVision
I don't supposed you've ever entertained the notion that to hide something you have to make it inconspicuous? Trees in the middle of roads = stupid. Its just a fact. I'm sorry if you dont agree. Maybe you two should work together. The OP began the insult hurling by basically saying we're all nutters. He had it coming. If you sympathize with him, maybe you should work for Google. They're amateurs. Period. I dont need to prove this anymore since their work speaks for itself.

Why should they make it inconspicuous? Then you "nutters" would just go on about how they are in league with the government.

No need to skirt an issue that already been resolved. The claim was made that the WhiteHouse was censored on GoogleMaps. I proved him wrong. End of story. Anything else?

Oh you proved "him" wrong?

Washington Post on Google Censorship

Pictures of White House Censorship

By the way, "him" was me. You prove yet again that you can't read and are condescending and smug even though you're quite obviously wrong. So much for your sarcastic remark of "So its legal for civilians to look at everything that's going on inside the building but illegal to see the rooftops."

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

[edit on 29-8-2008 by davion]

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Good find looks like but I don't have Google maps. Must be fun to work there with all the raw images.

My cat has google maps, silly, you must mean google earth. Here is the linky poo to gmaps:

maps.google.com...

Ok, I might have missed it, but all I read so far are comments on other people instead of an aswer to the original question.
So here it is:

The ground is part of the caste/hotel on the right (including the golf course). There is nothing in it anymore but before the castle became a hotel, it was property of the Dutch government and they tested a sattelite interceptor for the Dutch Satelite Interception Station (thats now located in Zoutdijk, De Marne).
Actually, that was years ago and nowadays it's just a quiet little forrest where local people walk their dogs. I think they simply forgot to "unblur" (is that a word?) the area.

[edit on 30/8/2008 by Speedjuh]

If you look at the area of 52 10'09.71" N 4 23'02.33" E in google maps, it is all mosaic blurriness. Looking at the same area in maps.live.com here (zoom in a little) you can see the ground ok, but there are no buildings, and where it looks like there should be buildings there are scrubbed out sections.

Originally posted by Obliv_au
one part of rural china? i think it was, looks like it has about 100sq KM of GE mapping shrunk down and pasted in an area about 1km square, complete with mountains and the like.

That's a training area or so I've been told.

Ha now they've blurred it right out of the map!!!
i wonder whats there!!!!

reply to post by WERE_ALL_GONA_DIE


Wierd, I life in Holland and I don`t recall any thing worth hiding there.

reply to post by Obliv_au


Maybe because it's not a real carrier? It's a conference center built in China, based on a Nimitz class carrier. If you had done any research into it you would have found it. It's a 3/4ths scale ship.

www.strategypage.com...

On the Eyeball-Series website you can see lots of google crap like this, they low res nuclear plants, cover up tons of foreign bases, and even some people's houses. Google has absolutely no integrity or backbone as far as I'm concerned. Nothing on there is really trustworthy though on the upside its usually obvious when they edit because they completely lack skilled photo editors.