Originally posted by abaraba
- really,
so why did you copy paste some diagrams instead of the images?
Because the diagrams show the position of the satellite better than the photos,
a photo over the north pole may not show anything else than the clouds (that was the situation yesterday) because there is no land mass below to show,
but if that is what you want I can post them.
Near the south pole, 04:34 October 26
Near the north pole, 05:25 October 26
Near the south pole, 06:13 October 26
Near the north pole, 07:04 October 26
Near the south pole, 07:58 October 26
Near the north pole, 08:49 October 26
You have to click the images to see them at 100%.
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
Maybe, we may even be saying the same thing, I am having a hard time to try to understand what you are
saying.
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
Those diagrams are from the link I provided before (for the third time, not fifth, as I said before), you just have to click on
it to see the last image and select the date and time from the drop down list to see the image for that date and time.
Here us that link once more.
IF NOTHING ELSE,
ANSWER THIS 1st PLEASE:
- would you like to "close this case"?
Yes.
- 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")
What I am trying to say is that those
shapes are the result of the overlaping of several satellite images, but apparently they do not have access to a near polar satellite because the one
from the link above, although not really showing the area over the poles, it shows a much closer area than the one we can see on Google Earth.
So, I think this is the sum of field of view from the geostationary satellites and lack of data (not loss of data) for the poles.
- shall we be happy with your explanation?
Only if you want to, although I like to see people happy I do not want to force anyone to do
anything.
- are you trying to explain anything at all, or you just arguing with me?
I am trying to explain.
- 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
When I asked about the small image it was because I do not see any V shapped cloud in the images you posted above, the only V icould see
was on this image.
I was just asking for you to show better what you mean, when we see something we can not be sure of what other people see, so I think we should try to
show it in a way that other people can understand it.
--- 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
OK, that was what it looked like and how it should look.
That only shows that what we see is not what we should see, it does not explain anything and it was what started this whole discussion, Google Earth
stopped showing the cloud cover as it had shown before.
What we have been trying to understand is why that happened, and my opinion is that happened because they stopped having one of the sources they had
before, some polar satellite that provided the data to cover the areas not covered by the geostationary satellites they use for the rest of the world.
