What is going on with Google Earth? (Related to October 14th), page 31
Pages: <<  28    29    30    31    32    33    34  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 62 times


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 07:30 AM by benjiskylar
"i'll never understand silly anti-humans like yourself.."
............
I am an anti-human? Awesome, I always wanted to be special.

"why don't you try the same argument with all the religion? there is surely nothing to SEE, eh?"
>>Absolutely. It's why it's bunk.

"now... speaking of the devil,
there is actually something very, very obvious they could see.. funny how they didn't notice it really...
what is the "score" in the Bible?
GOD: ~300,000 KILLS (not counting flood and other mass-murders)
SATAN: 3-5? (when ordered by GOD to do so)"
>>What has this got to do with the price of fish?


"1.) you are saying that this should not be investigated even if it is some bug with satellites or software? ..you're being ignorant"
Investigate. There are many ways. I would send up a weather balloon (~200$, 1 afternoon) or simply look up. You know there are such things as telescopes right?

Going back to first principles seems to be lost these days. People expect technology to work without being able to verify it. It's quite simple to send something up to 30,000 feet as an amateur to check out your claims. It's a lot easier to look up with a telescope though.

"2.) you're saying that you do not need explanation, you will rather pretend that you know... well, you're being ignorant, that way you'll never learn"
>>I learn all the time. I learn by thinking first then validating a claim to a reasonable level of confidence. If I can't do it myself, I'll rely on expert opinion.

"3.) you're saying that this does not need to be explained, even tho it never happened before and it might concern global WEATHER.. you are being ignorant, but you are free to think whatever you want - but, then.. there is no reason for you to post here more than you should post on all the Yeti, loch-ness monster.. and basically, you could go on with your "argument" and close every single thread on this forum"
>> Yes, I am saying look up. Your hypothesis is that something is up there that interferes with a camera, or there is a software issue. Both can be checked easily. There are alternate mapping software providers, and it's easy to either look up or look down (from a weather balloon). Wha'ts your point? Or you couldnt get off your computer to actually check?

is that what are you doing today?
are you going to post this same thing on every single thread here?
>> Stupidity runs rampant. I can't stop it all.


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 04:38 PM by abaraba
more information:

NASA satellite tracker, very nice..
i bet you never imagined there were so many of them.. fuk! i am quite surprised really.. let me take back my statement - space is not even close to empty, not around the Earth anyway.. sheesh!


science.nasa.gov...




--- LIVE WEATHER SATELLITE IMAGES, not related to Google ---

www.intellicast.com...

www.weatherimages.org...

www.ssec.wisc.edu...

tokoroa.dyndns.org...

fourmilab.ch...

ice.ssec.wisc.edu...

stratus.ssec.wisc.edu...



notice the same artifacts on these images as well,
so whoever still thinks this does not need explaining.. just move along, nothing for you here, you already know everything..

[edit on 24-10-2008 by abaraba]



reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 06:49 PM by ArMaP
reply to post by abaraba


Welcome to ATS, abaraba!

Let's hope you are not banned from this ATS as well, just keep on the right side of the Terms & Conditions and you can be here for a long time.

My opinion (although not professional, as I do not work with satellite imagery in my profession) as someone that has been working with computers doing everything from assembly programming to playing games, is that this is the result of lack of data from a polar satellite, the geostationary satellites do not show the poles, and without a polar (preferably more than one) satellite it's not possible to "see" the poles.

And the site I have posted some five times before never showed any "hole", and I think we should keep looking on the satellite pages, not on the pages of services that gather their data from undisclosed satellites, we may look at ten of those services and see the same thing because all ten use the same satellite that has a problem.

PS: reading all of your posts I think I see why you were banned, just keep calm and on topic and nothing bad will happen.


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 07:00 PM by abaraba
thank you,


My opinion (although not professional, as I do not work with satellite imagery in my profession) as someone that has been working with computers doing everything from assembly programming to playing games, is that this is the result of lack of data from a polar satellite, the geostationary satellites do not show the poles, and without a polar (preferably more than one) satellite it's not possible to "see" the poles.



- fair enough,
but i think you will agree with me on this:

+++ about "missing data"
weather.org...
www.intellicast.com...

note in these two links how the edge of the missing map is CURVE, its because that is how satellite trajectories "project" on the earth, that is how "field of view" of satellite looks like when it travels around the earth


do you agree?

but if we can not agree there than most certainly we agree here:
this is HOW its SUPPOSED to BE and how it WAS: www.barnabu.co.uk...


obviously satellites can see the poles, and if you look at the Google right now you can actually see for yourself - do you see?

do you agree?




And the site I have posted some five times before never showed any "hole", and I think we should keep looking on the satellite pages, not on the pages of services that gather their data from undisclosed satellites, we may look at ten of those services and see the same thing because all ten use the same satellite that has a problem.


- any, any information is good information, i do not discard anything

so, please share with us your sources of info, whatever you can find, im just discovering these things now myself, im a programmer i am not weather expert, give us all your links please



thank you for constructive conversation,
as long as there are some arguments involved it always is, even if we do not agree, so thanks for your arguments - they are valid, but i think this still needs to be explained all the same, if not even more

[edit on 24-10-2008 by abaraba]


reply posted on 24-10-2008 @ 08:43 PM by abaraba
+++ ARGUMENT AGAINST is now PROOF that there is HUGE V at south pole even on this map, pentagon on north pole is not visible here: Polar Satellites



southPole-15hr08minNZtime-25-oct-2008
[Current UTC (or GMT/Zulu)-time used: Saturday, October 25, 2008 at 02:06:53]



so people, now is the time,
whoever wants to "prove me wrong" just provide the link where we can see the WHOLE CLOUD - this cloud strangely has V cut-out in it?!


anyone on south pole with telescope?
can we phone them? ask them to look up?

i wonder,
would they see something like this?



[edit on 24-10-2008 by abaraba]



reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 08:01 AM by abaraba

Click here for more information.



reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 10:37 AM by ArMaP
Originally posted by abaraba
but i think you will agree with me on this:

+++ about "missing data"
weather.org...
www.intellicast.com...

note in these two links how the edge of the missing map is CURVE, its because that is how satellite trajectories "project" on the earth, that is how "field of view" of satellite looks like when it travels around the earth


do you agree?
No, not completely.

The curved shape is because most weather satellites are for predefined areas (for the US, for example), so they are geostationary. Being always on the same spot they only "see" the Earth from that same place, so the biggest image they can get is a round image with the whole of the Earth's "face". So, while that is the filed of view of the satellite, it is not as it travels around the Earth because it does not travel when compared with the Earth.

so, please share with us your sources of info, whatever you can find, im just discovering these things now myself, im a programmer i am not weather expert, give us all your links please
Here you have it, from a fellow programmer who always like meteorology, this is the site for a near polar satellite, and if you change the time and date you can see what the satellite was "seeing" at that time, including the south pole, without any strange shapes on the clouds.


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 06:24 PM by ArMaP
Originally posted by abaraba
IF ANYTHING,
ANSWER THIS 1st PLEASE: Can you explain V cloud?
What "V" cloud, the one you posted on a very small image?

If that is the cloud you are talking about then I can not explain something for which I do not have any information, the image is so small that I can not be sure of the shape.

it could be more effective if we were talking about how to contact the people at Google,
Apparently, they are not answering questions about this.

how to contact people at South Pole, how to avoid all the arguments and assumptions and get straight answer from people that are RESPONSIBLE to give answer, say Google or NASA - do you agree? how to do that?
Why NASA, does Google use NASA satellites for their cloud cover images?

do you agree that is how it is supposed to be and therefore NOTHING is explained, so all the same - THIS NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED, arguing details does not really explain general oddity of this, even if you were right i want explanation why this never happened before, and now they can not "fix it" for more than a month and yet they do not say anything - can you explain that?
I do not know if I can explain it, but I think that the lack of data from one satellite (a polar satellite) may be responsible for that, while they don't get another source they cannot show the images.

- fantastic!
do you realize how that makes it worse? do you see how that makes it even more impossible for some "data loss" to "form" in the middle of the map for all those shapes that do manifests closer to equator and are therefore fully in the "field of view of those satellite - do you agree?
What satellites? The problem is that we talk about satellites without knowing which satellites Google uses for the cloud cover layer. Suppose they use a satellite that shows the US and Canada, another satellite that shows south America, another satellite that shows Europe, another that shows most of Asia and another for Australia. If they only use these the coverage will be incomplete because the geostationary satellites do not show a large area, something like this.

The areas not covered by those satellites would not show any data, so if they have more areas covered and/or bigger areas, the areas without coverage are smaller, but a polar satellite passes over all areas, so it will cover not only the poles but also the whole of the Earth, filling the gaps, but if there is no polar satellite, no gaps are filled and there is no pole images.

these non equator satellites do "wobble around" and it is those satellites we want to trust the most when talking about poles, because they can see poles better - do you agree?
What do you call "non equator satellites"? The only satellites, as far as I know, used for meteorologic purposes are geostationary or polar (or near polar), the polar satellites cover all the Earth, but they do not have the advantage of showing an area whenever we want, while geostationary satellites can take a photo every half hour, for example, a polar satellite has to do several orbits to pass again over the same area.

to use your meteorology web-site, here is what i was talking about:
oiswww.eumetsat.org...
That image shows what was covered by that polar satellite, the following image, for example, shows what was covered during the last two (I think) orbits around the Earth.



- thanks, but i don't understand?
that website has THE SAME satellite images that other websites i provided have, those satellites DO NOT have a good view of the poles, but sure we will be looking there too.. if you look up through your window and you don't see UFO, that does not mean they do not exist, right?
That satellite shows almost the poles, it's a near polar satellite.
At the time I was writting this, as you can see, the photos on that site showed the satellite getting close to the pole (over the Iceland at 20:52) and at 20:07 of October 25 it was over the Antarctica.

20:52


20:07


but until then,
im afraid that im the expert on the subject, so probabilistically im ought to be the closest to truth ..and the apparent inability to show my arguments even doubtful might be a sign that, in fact, i solved the "mystery" of what it is, so its only the matter of figuring out - what caused it?
Expert in what?

And I would thank you if you could explain things in a more "for dummies" way, English is not my natural tongue and the way you right is very confusing for me, maybe because I never had English classes I have some problems understanding people that do not talk in a more "standard" way.

PS:The area without clouds in Google is partly covered by this satellite, at 20:58 it was over Greenland on an area that Google shows without clouds.


reply posted on 25-10-2008 @ 07:52 PM by abaraba
>>"That satellite shows almost the poles, it's a near polar satellite. "

- really,
so why did you copy paste some diagrams instead of the images?

those images that you posted are the similar i used to explain the CURVATURE of the edges of the map, so you basically just provide more arguments to support my theory

give us real links - when we click we need to see what you're talking about in REAL-TIME, not DIAGRAMS of it - are you sure they did not take if OFF-LINE? i



IF NOTHING ELSE,
ANSWER THIS 1st PLEASE:

- would you like to "close this case"?
- are you saying these shapes are "filed of view" or "loss data"?
(even when they move, gradually change shape, disappear and then clouds fill-in "field of vision")

- shall we be happy with your explanation?

- are you trying to explain anything at all, or you just arguing with me?


What "V" cloud, the one you posted on a very small image?





- this is where our conversation ends (sort of),
you response is not logical, that's not small image and you have all these links available to you together with software of your choice, so i don't need to provide anything because im not religious missionary and i don't care to be convincing anyone of anything, if you care about it you will check it yourself - as you said, data is recorded, so all you have to do is to find it and see it for yourself if you don't trust me and my images


anyway,
we both presented our arguments, there is no need to repeat it or argue about something that does not lead to explanation, especially since we basically agree on everything.. everyone is free to conclude whatever they like


now, i will be just presenting INFORMATION,
i don't feel i need to argue anything anymore, i dont mean to catch fish for anyone, but here is the net i.e. links and all the info so you can go fishing yourself..


sure, DO NOT BELIEVE ME, OF COURSE NOT!
- here you have all the links so you can see everything for yourself - in real-time

--- BEFORE ---


--- NOW ---



and please try to find these RIPPLES on ANY of the clouds before, surely thats not "data loss" or "field of view", or is it?


--- RIPPLES ---





start up Google Earth and check it yourself,
my first and only necessary argument really - STILL STANDS:


--- ARGUMENT ---

this is HOW its SUPPOSED to BE and how it WAS: www.barnabu.co.uk...

you only have to see that and compare it to the last month, that's all

[edit on 25-10-2008 by abaraba]
Pages: <<  28    29    30    31    32    33    34  >>    ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 9 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 17 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 19 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 3 days ago with 27 member flags
Jacques Vallee: Implications of UFO Phenomena - Thinking Allowed.
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

AP: WHITNEY HOUSTON DEAD
  People, Posted 13 hours ago, 93 replies
Why conservatives . . . . . suck!
  Political Ideology, Posted 14 hours ago, 69 replies
IF YOURE AMERICAN!
  Rant, Posted 15 hours ago, 32 replies
London 2012 Olympics Conspiracy
  General Conspiracies, Posted 16 hours ago, 29 replies