Most of what happens on this planet is being recorded.

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: tetra50

I'm curious how a global sensor network like that would be maintained. For example if there were a forest fire, or a very large explosion, presumably afterwards there would be a few sensors to replaced. Could I camp out and marvel as the authorities miraculously appeared to remove me so that repair crews could go in unseen?

well now, I really can't answer that, as I'm not a member of any of those agencies….lol. Your example was an amusing visual, I must say.

Perhaps the men in black show up, and memory flash you with their ink pen device.

My suggestion in the face of such a possibility though is simple and counterintuitive, as many good plans are. Act a fool. Give them all the dirt they could ever want. Pee outdoors, go to places of ill repute of all kinds, say outrageous things, randomly do minor good or ill precisely because you do not feel like it at the moment and let everyone know. The open extent of your madness takes away the unknowns and renders you harmless (if you really are) despite any revelation that might otherwise cause people to wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes with you. You become beyond the lies or inuendos of a government presumed to be omniscient, you become beloved despite your faults, and if you do these things just for their own sake, up until the point they actually get inside your head you become randomized and hard to profile or predict from past observation.

I found this to be excellent, and well written, advice, btw….
tetra

@VoidHawk:

I'm just sayin' that incredibly advance tech exists, and is monitored 24/7, right now. Not only that, it has for many years. Some years ago, people were aware, for instance, that pink flamingoes and other yard ornaments, were, in fact, often equipped with surveillance devices and sold to the public. Perhaps there's some kind of time warp, and I came from a parallel reality where this was known, or everyone forgot it but me…..lol
tetra

originally posted by: tetra50
@VoidHawk:

I'm just sayin' that incredibly advance tech exists, and is monitored 24/7, right now. Not only that, it has for many years. Some years ago, people were aware, for instance, that pink flamingoes and other yard ornaments, were, in fact, often equipped with surveillance devices and sold to the public. Perhaps there's some kind of time warp, and I came from a parallel reality where this was known, or everyone forgot it but me…..lol
tetra

OP is telling us of a system thats supposedly been monitoring the entire earth since the 80's, with a resolution so great it can see human hair, and they can just dial in any time and location and take a look at it!
I'm saying BS and I've offered my reasons.

When I offered my reasons you said

it's patently untrue

and then you described something completely unrelated as your evidence!

Now your talking about pink flamingo's fitted with cameras!

LOL
I rest my case

a reply to: tetra50

Thanks for the nod to my late-to-the-party-hippie style advice. I really have been surprised how much more I am trusted and liked since I stopped worrying so much about what people might think or expect.

I didn't expect you to have the answer but in all seriousness, I know that teams have not physically placed devices at close intervals all over the globe. It is reminiscent of the McNamara wall idea of Vietnam, which perhaps could work today (though that would raise the question of how North Korea can still tunnel under their border to kidnap etc). But to do it world wide you'd need a cheap discrete remotely placed sensor.

I'm thinking space delivery is almost as impractical as ground delivery (people might notice every square mile of Earth taking a small fireball from the sky) so that leaves air delivery of a precision guided device capable of imbedding itself in any surface that would be targeted.

The more I talk the more I see it's impossible, but nevertheless, one really could go to the scene of a forest fire that has just been put down and do surveillance until they saw men in black or a UAV or an object streaking in from space, go right to it, and recover it.

But all of these problems can be overcome with other ideas- smart dust for example could track the whole world and be almost unnoticeable and wind delivered. But that's just rfid tracking- target assisted radar that can be defeated- not a global ear to the ground or full spectrum intel gathering device.

First, it was God watching us...then Santa....now the American government???
I want bigger better presents this year for being a good law abiding American Christian.

My input here was totally sarcastic, and I'm sorry.
A tad.

I doubt this is possible, but it would actually be kind of cool. I'd love to have videos of me drinking and causing trouble on the streets as an obnoxious teenager. Something to show the kids later in life

a reply to: caseman1967

I thought it was pithy. I dont know if you watch South Park but you just nailed the entire episode let go and let gov in two sentences.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Had to do a few chores, but this is the first abstract I came up with. Of course, not being a scientist, I cannot access the whole paper, but this snippet certainly implies what OP suggests is quite possible.

International Journal of Remote Sensing (Impact Factor: 1.14). 01/1997; 18:3873-3881. DOI: 10.1080/014311697216694
ABSTRACT Following the end of the Cold War governmental restrictions on the commercial availability of fine spatial resolution satellite sensor imagery have been relaxed world-wide. This, combined with marked reductions in the costs of developing, launching and operating satellites, has led to considerable research activity in this field by a number of private remote sensing organisations. Within the next few years, imagery with a spatial resolution as fine as 1 m in panchromatic mode and 4 m in multispectral mode will be available widely. This Letter presents a review of fine spatial resolution satellite sensors in operation or planned for operation within the next decade. Details of both commercial and governmental systems are provided. The emphasis is on commercially available data and so data collected for defence applications only are not included. A variety of both instrument and data specifications are highlighted, including spatial and spectral capabilities, and characteristics of viewing geometry, satellite orbit, data collection and supply. Typically, these systems are characterized not only by their fine spatial resolution, but also by high geometric precision, short revisit intervals and rapid data supply.

a reply to: The Vagabond
I'm sorry to say to you and VoidHawk I think it is quite possible, maybe even likely. The abstract I provided hinted at this at the very beginning, saying "Since the end of the Cold War governmental restrictions on the commercial availability of fine spatial satellite sensor imagery have been relaxed world-wide."

When I said, it's patently untrue….what I was zeroing in on was VoidHawk's assertion that tech like this certainly hasn't existed yet.

I'll eventually find the right doc to prove my assertion more than the above abstract suggesting it, that I can post here, and I will keep looking, but I think that abstract is a good start, as it refers immediately to the Cold War…..

And I rest my case.
LOL. I'll also find something on the flamingoes, Void, just for you.
Tet

Camera systems with adaptive optics on them since the 80s... no wonder that airplanes are falling from the skies.

We have ground based telescopes that are HUGE, the can just about count the screws in satellites, using adaptive optics... that is optics that can take into account how CRAP the atmosphere is to look through. Basically everything wobbles because of movement of air and pressure differentials changing the refractive index very slightly.

It all boils down to a mess. The limit for a period of good 'seeing' as its called in astronomy, is about 40-50cm resolution from the orbit a satellite would make. Supplement this with aerial photography and you can probably reach cm resolution.

Now... the surface of the Earth? mmm it is about 5.1x10^18 cm^2... say we have 1x1cm pixel size in 8 bit colour... so thats 1 byte per pixel...

You need 5 exabytes per second data storage and transfer... This is... unrealistic, even with compression.

So given what i know about technology and also how propaganda works, (the whole 'They' have tech which is 50 years ahead... is more a hold over from the cold war where that stuff was said to generally confuse enemies of the various nations) I would say that the statements made where just a case of tall tales to make one feel good.

Iv heard it many times before, and it just is simply not true in the slightest. did we have digital cameras in the 80s? yes we did but they where very basic and very crude and bulky... resolution of 10,000 pixels. Late 80s digital cameras for use in said police cars... mmmm again i think this is a case of memories and tall tales, talking extremely late 80s for an actual useful digital camera, and they where only for military use and never shipped outside of Japan most likely. Maybe a few people could get hold of them, but, prototypes for plate recognition... not till mid 90s the earliest commercially available unit being a Dyna Cam 1, resolution 320x240... before this the only method used to digitize images was a video tube camera, which is basically an inverted TV set. Could we do pattern recognition with one of these back in the late 80s? yes... but it would not have been a digital camera by todays means or technology, and the resolution would have been BAAAAAAD meaning your shots of plates would have probably be human readable anyway. Regardless... that part of the whole thread is the only bit of slight truth.

What you are trying to convince is just so unlikely to be feasible it goes straight into 'tall tale and 95% fantasy'

Also, serving in military of police force, does not make someone honest or of trust worthy character, lets just get that one out the way. Depending on the country you are from, the types that often end up in law enforcement are typically bully types who are often not the smartest pick of the pack. (while that sounds terrible and will likely offend many, it is from my experience absolutely a reasonable statement) so do i trust someone like that to tell me about technology? no, no i dont... because i actually understand how most of this tech works, and what is claimed in the OP... just... no, sorry to break the bubble.

Not possible.

Satellites in geostationary orbit hang nearly 23,000 miles above Earth's surface. That's three times the diameter of Earth itself. You can't much from up there. Satellites in lower orbits travel too fast to film anything, though still images are possible.

This is getting downright comical, I agree.
Advanced tech wouldn't be available nor known in any way whatsoever to the general public. That's clearly stated in that abstract that I quoted. That's why it's important that he said the "governmental restrictions on commercial availability….." That's what that means, essentially. I'm surprised I'm arguing this point on ATS, but this isn't the Aliens and UfO's Forum, where we regularly stipulate, agree, for the sake of getting somewhere in the discussion, (though most of us know this, anyway, and so stipulating it isn't a big deal) that we all accept there is a level of technology that the gen pop is totally unaware of. I can throw up here several mil.dic docs that refer to classified tech all over the place….

That abstract is from an expert specializing in remote monitoring development, note it's for a publication called International Journal of Remote Sensing. And notice the date is 1997. Hmmm. I wonder why, way back then, they'd have a whole journal for discussing the development of Remote Sensing? And the very first sentence of the abstract addresses the fact that the availability of certain tech has been restricted by government. This is just common sense, at this point.

And it doesn't matter if you understand how these technologies work, sorry. That means nothing, because you're only exposed in the general public to what's available to the general public. And I expect ErosA433, that you are part of the general public and not working with military on classified tech. Maybe I'm wrong but I would have thought you would have mentioned that if you were.

This is just downright silly. Go to Google maps, for goodness sakes, click on the satellite view of any area, and look how much detail you can see. And that's what's available to the public. On the news, when the government is justifying bombing somewhere or other, these days usually the ME, the news station will frequently show a satellite pic of the area in question, and it's pretty clear and detailed. That's what they let the public and other countries know they have.

Oral history interview with Isaac Levin Auerbach Charles Babbage Institute University of Minnesota. Auerbach discusses his work at Burroughs 1949–1957 managing development for the SAGE project, BEAM I computer, the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile System, a magnetic core encryption communications system, and Atlas missile.

The Burroughs Corp. started as an adding machine company in St. Louis, MO in 1886. It was one of the largest producers of the mainframe computer, eventually, along with companies like IBM. At one time, it was said the corporation built the first mainframe, but that's now disputed, and for our purposes doesn't really matter. The above exterior text info shows what Burroughs Corp. was on the cutting edge of developing, and how early they were on it: 1949.

They provided the computer systems for the military's first satellites, for spying, for communications, etc. and for controlling ballistic missile systems. A little research into what satellites are used for and how many there are is useful here. A whole lot of them are for visualizing. NASA has a whole earth observance "fleet" of satellites:
LINK NASA's Earth Observance System.
That's what we're talking about, after all, observing the earth.

Many satellites are also used for navigation purposes, all capable of visualization. Spy satellites are relied upon for the detail they provide.

Then there's this, from the CIA's homepage:

Directorate of Science and Technology: Technology so Advanced, it's Classified

Here at CIA, most of the work we do is classified. And the work done in the Directorate of Science and Technology (DS&T) is no exception. In fact, the men and women—the scientists, engineers and technical experts—in the DS&T produce technology so advanced, it’s classified. Think back to a James Bond movie and the work developed by the “Q Branch.” What our men and women do is even more impressive.

The use of science and technology is critical to the intelligence process, and the DS&T’s mission is to attack intelligence problems with cutting-edge technical solutions to help protect the nation.

The use of science and technology originated with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) – CIA’s predecessor organization – during World War II. During the Cold War, it was critical to the clandestine and analytical officers abroad to have the latest scientific advances, specifically with technical collection.

In the early 1950s and 1960s, the CIA’s forward-thinking officers assumed a dominant role in the development of state-of-the-art aerial, space-based, and ground technical collection systems and devices.

Overhead reconnaissance was one of CIA’s most important missions during this time. Because of these needs, CIA developed two extraordinary aircraft: the U-2 and the A-12.

and:

What We Do
The DS&T continually seeks to push the boundaries of the state-of-the-art, infusing cutting-edge technologies with effective targeting and tradecraft. The majority of work produced in the DS&T is classified.

Link

Also, the Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars program proposed and funded by Reagan in the early eighties developed some very advanced, de-classified tech. However, the program was eventually abandoned, supposedly because of border issues in the space above earth and because of funding. But I'm sure some of this work continued, as black ops projects and therefore, classified. The timing would be right here for what OP clams….

Its called "Persistent Surveillance"... They can and have been doing it with satellites. Next they will / have been doing it with aircraft / drones.

They have actually solved crimes with it already.

throw up those military documents then, iv seen so much talk of "Oh you dont know" that it it too is comical. Yes there is nice military tech out there, but what you fundamentally don't understand is that... the science of optics is the science of optics. It isn't just about putting a big lens on a satellite. Fundamentally and scientifically, the atmosphere is moving, and light doesn't take an exact straight path through it. That effect can be removed, but it requires high powered lasers and multiple exposures/active shape changing optics.

What you don't understand tetra50 is that science and technology wise, people can understand the principles of what would be REQUIRED to do what is claimed. And in this case, can the whole world be observed? yes by all means it can, can it be observed in the detail claimed using said satellites and the technology available in the 1980s, early or late... No, because observing it in the way described is a mean feat even by todays standards.

This is not proof of the "Military tech is 50 years ahead" Why? Well if the US had such tech, the US demeanour is to stomp all over the world and invade everyone. If the US is so advanced the world would probably not exist in the way that it does right now. Which means two things.... military tech in the US is advanced but not THAT advanced, or every government in any rich nation has similar advanced tech.

From an ego stand point i can see that many would dismiss both of those and go for a "Oh well the US controls everything" Well I doubt that greatly.

Furthermore, all seeing at all points in history? Well i can see people of national interest who 'escaped' detection for many years who generally disprove what is being claimed.


Most super detailed shots you see are from aircraft, probably the lovely SR-71 an aircraft which was very advanced for its day, though had counterparts designed and built by other nations to do approximately the same role.

What I am is a scientist who has worked with a handful of non-commercial technologies applicable to the medical field and the field of particle physics, devices that could become useful in producing extremely low light level cameras. That is still long off, but basically at the time only 3 fabs in the world could produce them, and none of them where in the US. What happens when you work in the field of Science is that you start to understand and know what technology is available and what is possible or around the corner. Trust me, military tech is NOT that far ahead. if it was, all these wars being fought would be over in a matter of seconds.


50 years ahead? fighting a force with tech dating about 60 years previous... cost effectivness would be to break out this tech and end the conflicts. Truth is, it is hot air.

a reply to: VoidHawk

I am not twisting anyone's arm as to whether to believe or not. Take it with a grain of salt.

BTW....... NSA says hello.

2 grains for me and the bill's for you thanks

originally posted by: ErosA433
throw up those military documents then, iv seen so much talk of "Oh you dont know" that it it too is comical. Yes there is nice military tech out there, but what you fundamentally don't understand is that... the science of optics is the science of optics. It isn't just about putting a big lens on a satellite. Fundamentally and scientifically, the atmosphere is moving, and light doesn't take an exact straight path through it. That effect can be removed, but it requires high powered lasers and multiple exposures/active shape changing optics.

What you fundamentally don't understand is basic image processing. There is a simple thing called "image averaging" or even "temporal averaging" that removes almost all atmospheric refraction and other atmospheric noise.

earth.esa.int...

They can capture 100s of images in a span of a few milliseconds with a high speed camera. Then they apply a quick algorithm to each of the 100s of images to shift the pixels in the opposite direction of the movement of the satellite, so the pixels of all images are aligned. Then they apply pixel by pixel averaging, which means they take each image and average the color of each pixel together to get a final color for that pixel.

The more images you can average together, the better the quality.

Sure atmospheric refraction exists, but not on every pixel at every moment in time. So take multiple images of the same location and average the pixels together to get remove those pixels affected by refraction.

www.uprm.edu...

Old tech.

originally posted by: Jesuslives4u
a reply to: VoidHawk

I am not twisting anyone's arm as to whether to believe or not. Take it with a grain of salt.

BTW....... NSA says hello.

I'm sure you do.

originally posted by: tetra50
a reply to: VoidHawk

Had to do a few chores, but this is the first abstract I came up with. Of course, not being a scientist, I cannot access the whole paper, but this snippet certainly implies what OP suggests is quite possible.

International Journal of Remote Sensing (Impact Factor: 1.14). 01/1997; 18:3873-3881. DOI: 10.1080/014311697216694
ABSTRACT Following the end of the Cold War governmental restrictions on the commercial availability of fine spatial resolution satellite sensor imagery have been relaxed world-wide. This, combined with marked reductions in the costs of developing, launching and operating satellites, has led to considerable research activity in this field by a number of private remote sensing organisations. Within the next few years, imagery with a spatial resolution as fine as 1 m in panchromatic mode and 4 m in multispectral mode will be available widely. This Letter presents a review of fine spatial resolution satellite sensors in operation or planned for operation within the next decade. Details of both commercial and governmental systems are provided. The emphasis is on commercially available data and so data collected for defence applications only are not included. A variety of both instrument and data specifications are highlighted, including spatial and spectral capabilities, and characteristics of viewing geometry, satellite orbit, data collection and supply. Typically, these systems are characterized not only by their fine spatial resolution, but also by high geometric precision, short revisit intervals and rapid data supply.

Even if implemented thats still not what op is expecting us to believe!

imagery with a spatial resolution as fine as 1 m in panchromatic mode and 4 m in multispectral mode

1 pixel per meter!!!! That wouldn't even be able to see a person! op claims human hair is visible!

To make this understandable.
1 meter of ground will be represented by one pixel.
A whole person could be standing in that 1 square meter and they would be completely invisible!
Now something like a train would be visible as a very thing line, but even that wouldn't have ANY detail, it would just be a thin line.

First you offered some kind of sonar device, then you offered pink flamingo's, now your offering this!
Now come on, seriously, you have provided NOTHING that comes anywhere near what op is expecting us to believe.

a reply to: WeAre0ne
what you fundamentally don't understand is that temporal imaging is like nursery school imaging compared to adaptive optics. So before claiming someones ignorance and then trying to explain something that the poster already knowns quite well, try reading whole posts

I spoke about adaptive optics which is the ultimate way of getting rid of the fuzz.

combine them and you get some really nice shots. What you need to really do is take a step back and actually understand what it is being said before jumping on things with substantial evidence/statements.

A lovely look at the power of adaptive optics cfao.ucolick.org...

Still doesn't answer the enormous data rate and storage requirements, even with compression. It is not really possible in a way that makes it useable.