GOOGLE EARTH

run, they're after you

11th grade is right ...

... and i'm that kind of person that has no fun in life and whose only satisfaction is wasting time on forums ... not to have fun, to convince people i dont even know to the simple fact that the earth is round. I spend a lot of energy in this and i feel insulted if someone doesn't take me serious.
besides, i'm so damn smug for no reason. i like the internet because nobody notices i'm a little fat.


well did i mean myself in the second part?

do you mean the second part was me?  i am a little fat.  i'm not smug though am i?

joking aside, how many of them did i get right?

joking aside, how many of them did i get right?

i guess just the fat one.

Yeah, because obviously planes can't fly at high altitudes and take pictures, right? Sure.

Plus, how do you explain sattelite pictures getting such good-quality pictures. I mean, come on. It's ridiculous. I can't get a good shot of my cat with my camera from one-hundred yards away, and you're telling me that something out tens of miles away, through clouds and apparently an "atmosphere" can take pictures so accurately that I can see my house and even my car outside of my house? Not likely.

~D-Draw

1.Where is the evidence that the pics are taken by planes and not by satellites? What do you have to support this?

2.How much is your camera worth? How many people worked to developp it over how many years? How big are the lenz? Was it designed to take pictures from space?

3.Why would satelites not be able to take clear pictures but planes would?

4.Satellites take the images when weather permits it. Who ever pretended that they could take pics through clouds?

5. Why are you willing to beleive that NASA had perfect image editing programs in 1969, while at the same time, consider that satellties being able to take clear pictures is ridiculous?

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

Yeah, because obviously planes can't fly at high altitudes and take pictures, right? Sure.

Plus, how do you explain sattelite pictures getting such good-quality pictures. I mean, come on. It's ridiculous. I can't get a good shot of my cat with my camera from one-hundred yards away, and you're telling me that something out tens of miles away, through clouds and apparently an "atmosphere" can take pictures so accurately that I can see my house and even my car outside of my house? Not likely.

~D-Draw

1.Where is the evidence that the pics are taken by planes and not by satellites? What do you have to support this?

2.How much is your camera worth? How many people worked to developp it over how many years? How big are the lenz? Was it designed to take pictures from space?

3.Why would satelites not be able to take clear pictures but planes would?

4.Satellites take the images when weather permits it. Who ever pretended that they could take pics through clouds?

5. Why are you willing to beleive that NASA had perfect image editing programs in 1969, while at the same time, consider that satellties being able to take clear pictures is ridiculous?

lol you get em phaseshifter.  diego you just got rocked.

1.Where is the evidence that the pics are taken by planes and not by satellites? What do you have to support this?

I don't have any. Fair enough? I do, however, have evidence AGAINST sattelites, which I referrenced, and therefore, where else would the pictures from Google Earth come from?

2.How much is your camera worth? How many people worked to developp it over how many years? How big are the lenz? Was it designed to take pictures from space?

It's worth a couple hundred dollars, and I'm not reccomending that it be designed to take pictures from really far away; that was completely not the point I was trying to make. The point I WAS trying to make was that in order to do this, you would need a humongous lense, and millions of dollars worth of money.

3.Why would satelites not be able to take clear pictures but planes would?

Well, as far as I'm concerned, planes don't generally fly outside of the "atmosphere," unless you want to argue with me otherwise.

4.Satellites take the images when weather permits it. Who ever pretended that they could take pics through clouds?

Nobody, but what about that big, bad "atmosphere?" Sounds like an obstruction to me.

5. Why are you willing to beleive that NASA had perfect image editing programs in 1969, while at the same time, consider that satellties being able to take clear pictures is ridiculous?

Perfect? Hardly. Still, they were believable enough, and I believe that because sattelites being able to take clear pictures of things so far away just seems ridiculous. You have to admit, it does sound a bit 'out there' (no pun intended).

~D-Draw

I don't have any. Fair enough? I do, however, have evidence AGAINST sattelites, which I referrenced, and therefore, where else would the pictures from Google Earth come from?

Please share your evidence with us.

The point I WAS trying to make was that in order to do this, you would need a humongous lense, and millions of dollars worth of money.

Yes, millions of dollars that Google has.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, planes don't generally fly outside of the "atmosphere," unless you want to argue with me otherwise.

No they don't. Whats your point?

Nobody, but what about that big, bad "atmosphere?" Sounds like an obstruction to me.

If the satellite is looking down on it, there wouldn't be much of a problem. If it were looking at the ground it would have twice as much atmosphere to look though, and even then it really wouldn't be enough to get in the way.

Here I threw something together to make it easier to understand. The diagonal line is almost twice as long as the vertical one.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/Masterchief2219/satellite.png

Perfect? Hardly. Still, they were believable enough, and I believe that because sattelites being able to take clear pictures of things so far away just seems ridiculous. You have to admit, it does sound a bit 'out there' (no pun intended).

Why? I have looked at the moon with a telescope, and I saw it perfectly clearly, in detail. Satellites are much closer to the Earth than I was to the moon.

don't have any. Fair enough? I do, however, have evidence AGAINST sattelites

What is it?

The point I WAS trying to make was that in order to do this, you would need a humongous lense, and millions of dollars worth of money.

And you are correct. Satellites are not build with aluminum sheets and staples and aren't exactly cheap to build. I gladly concede this point.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, planes don't generally fly outside of the "atmosphere," unless you want to argue with me otherwise

So? As long as there are no clouds in the way, why would satellites have a problem with taking pictures?

Nobody, but what about that big, bad "atmosphere?" Sounds like an obstruction to me.

When they take pictures of planets from observational telescopes, are they obstructed? Do you find yourelf unable to ever use telescopes? Do you not see the stars when you look up at night on a clear sky? If the atmosphere was as obstrusive as you say, we never would have ben able to see saturn let alone tell that it had rings.

Perfect? Hardly. Still, they were believable enough, and I believe that because sattelites being able to take clear pictures of things so far away just seems ridiculous. You have to admit, it does sound a bit 'out there' (no pun intended).

How is it more ridiculous than using technology for the sole purpose of hoaxing something people already beleive? and that requires a medium that hadn't even been invented? In order to never have been officially denounced as fake, they had to be perfect. And again, what evidence do you have that NASA had those photo editing programs from the futures? With that technology,you wonder why the U.S. gouv. even has unsolved cases. They could have had a convenient picture of JFK getting shot by someone.

Please share your evidence with us.

That's what I've been mentioning the entire thread. Clouds, atmosphere, lense size, etcetera.

Yes, millions of dollars that Google has.

So, they're Google's sattelites now? I thought that they were NASA's.

No they don't. Whats your point?

Um...The atmosphere doesn't disrupt them. I think I mentioned that already.

If the satellite is looking down on it, there wouldn't be much of a problem. If it were looking at the ground it would have twice as much atmosphere to look though, and even then it really wouldn't be enough to get in the way.

How do you know that? Firstly, during the day, there's a lot of obstruction from reflections off of the water and all that stuff (if we can't see through the daytime sky, I don't see how a sattelite could take a picture through it), and then after dark, there wouldn't be enough light to expose the film.

Why? I have looked at the moon with a telescope, and I saw it perfectly clearly, in detail. Satellites are much closer to the Earth than I was to the moon.

Do you know how cameras work? Looking through a telescope is hardly the same. Unless you want to install a gargantuan light on top of the sattelite so that you can get a good, big flash, exposing film in this manner would be incredibly difficult.

~D-Draw

That's what I've been mentioning the entire thread. Clouds, atmosphere, lense size, etcetera

That is not evidence, that is your opinion.  We've already told you that the atmosphere doesn't affect it. Pictures of the moons and other planets aren't blurry are they?

Evidence can be examined and cannot be refuted. Saying "lense size" is not evidence of anything.

If you really need to know how satellite imagery works, then look it up.  What you're saying right now is making you look stupid. You claim an impossibility based on your own personal perception of how satellites pictures are taken.

Look up the process THEN try to refute it.

1.Where is the evidence that the pics are taken by planes and not by satellites? What do you have to support this?

Google says so on it's website:

2. Are Google Earth images captured in real time?

No, they aren't. Our images are photographs taken by satellites and aircraft sometime in the last three years.

Now, can you tell the difference between the ones taken by an aircraft and the ones taken by 'satellites'?  

How can you be certain they were not all taken by aircraft?

because tehy say satellites AND aircraft?...no wait, i forgot that they are liers and they are taking part in the conspiracy

First he says google says so, and in the next sentence he questions what they say.....brilliant.

That's what I've been mentioning the entire thread. Clouds, atmosphere, lense size, etcetera.

None of those things listed are a problem. We have already explained why.

So, they're Google's sattelites now? I thought that they were NASA's.

Note how it is called "Google Earth" and not "NASA Earth".

But NASA has a significantly bigger budget than Google anyway.

Um...The atmosphere doesn't disrupt them. I think I mentioned that already.

And I already explained why.

How do you know that? Firstly, during the day, there's a lot of obstruction from reflections off of the water and all that stuff (if we can't see through the daytime sky, I don't see how a sattelite could take a picture through it)...

For the reflections off of the water, it wouldn't be bright enough to ruing the picture, and it would only be visible when viewing it from certain angles. Plus we have lenses that can get rid of glare.

The reason we can't see the sky during the daytime is because it is too bright where we are. Its almost like trying to look outside at night from a lighted house. You can see outside fine when the lights in your house are off, but when they are on it is almost impossible. Likewise, an observer outside would be able to see you when the lights are on, or off if they are capable of seeing in the dark (which most satellites are).

...and then after dark, there wouldn't be enough light to expose the film.

...please tell me that was a joke :?

Do you know how cameras work? Looking through a telescope is hardly the same. Unless you want to install a gargantuan light on top of the sattelite so that you can get a good, big flash, exposing film in this manner would be incredibly difficult.

God, you are clueless, aren't you? If you can see something through a telescope, you don't need a light source to take a picture. You only need a camera that can see through the telescope.

AND SATELLITES DO NOT USE FILM! :lol:

Now, can you tell the difference between the ones taken by an aircraft and the ones taken by 'satellites'?  

How can you be certain they were not all taken by aircraft?

Last time I checked, planes can't leave out atmosphere. So any picture that was taken from a higher altitude than a plane can go was obviously taken by a satellite.

Quote

So, they're Google's sattelites now? I thought that they were NASA's.

Note how it is called "Google Earth" and not "NASA Earth".

NASA has its own "Google Earth" equivalent, called World Wind.  

Last time I checked, planes can't leave out atmosphere. So any picture that was taken from a higher altitude than a plane can go was obviously taken by a satellite.

Hmm...So what altitude would that be?  Because I've never had GE tell me that I can't zoom out any further because the picture is from an aircraft.

Hmm...So what altitude would that be?  Because I've never had GE tell me that I can't zoom out any further because the picture is from an aircraft.

Because when you zoom in, it loads a different, more detailed picture. When you zoom out, it loads a less detailed picture.

The atmosphere is about 86 kilometers high.

Because when you zoom in, it loads a different, more detailed picture. When you zoom out, it loads a less detailed picture.

So why couldn't it take the more detailed picture, run it through a computer and produce a less detailed picture?  Unless you mean to tell us that GE's satellite time is so massive that they take pictures of the same area over and over again just to take one good picture and then a bunch of crappy ones...

The atmosphere is about 86 kilometers high.

That wasn't my question.

Quote from: "Masterchief2219"

Because when you zoom in, it loads a different, more detailed picture. When you zoom out, it loads a less detailed picture.

So why couldn't it take the more detailed picture, run it through a computer and produce a less detailed picture?  Unless you mean to tell us that GE's satellite time is so massive that they take pictures of the same area over and over again just to take one good picture and then a bunch of crappy ones...

Quote

The atmosphere is about 86 kilometers high.

That wasn't my question.

pwnd

the earth is round period.

the earth is round period.

Thanks for the enlightening post. Keep at it!

~D-Draw

the earth is round period.

period...followed by a fullstop...

So why couldn't it take the more detailed picture, run it through a computer and produce a less detailed picture?

Because it is a faster, and less expensive to take several pictures from the same spot at different zooms than it is to take one per spot and then digitally edit them.

That wasn't my question.

No, but I figured I would add it anyway.

Quote from: "TheEngineer"

So why couldn't it take the more detailed picture, run it through a computer and produce a less detailed picture?

Because it is a faster, and less expensive to take several pictures from the same spot at different zooms than it is to take one per spot and then digitally edit them.

Didn't take that long, really.

Didn't take that long, really.

Ok, now notice how your second picture looks like crap. Google doesn't want GE to look bad. :roll:

Plus, you have one image. GE is made up of millions of images.

Plus, you have one image. GE is made up of millions of images.

Exactly.  Let's just say that GE requires one million shots to map the earth.  Satellite time is not cheap.  Let's also say it cost 5 million to map the earth.  So they need at least three photos of each swath.  So that increases their usage to 3 million shots that have to be edited together and increases the cost to 15 million dollars.  That's a lot of money they don't have to spend when they can just digitally manipulate the pictures they have to make them look like you are actually zooming out.

is this guy serious in saying that every single zoom is a new picture?

Exactly.  Let's just say that GE requires one million shots to map the earth.  Satellite time is not cheap.  Let's also say it cost 5 million to map the earth.  So they need at least three photos of each swath.  So that increases their usage to 3 million shots that have to be edited together and increases the cost to 15 million dollars.  That's a lot of money they don't have to spend when they can just digitally manipulate the pictures they have to make them look like you are actually zooming out.

Not really. You are assuming that they will circle the Earth for each zoom. They could easily take 3 pictures of the same spot from 10 different zooms, before the satellite has moved enough to take a picture of another section of the Earth.

is this guy serious in saying that every single zoom is a new picture?

Are you seriously trying to claim that the Earth is flat, that satellites can not possibly exist, and that the government is powerful enough to cover up something as big as the shape of the Earth?

GE loads a new image after every few miles that you zoom in.

this thread is getting way off topic.  let's all stop speculating on how google made google earth (unless someone really knows, i sure don't).  my original point in making this thread was to find out of FEers think google is part of the conspiracy, which i don't think anyone has answered unless i skipped over it.  and if you do think google is part of the conspiracy, can you explain why a company based around an internet search engine would want to deceive the general public?