Satellite image manipulating *example*

reply to post by Harvestfreak


am also a pro designer 3d guy and its quite simple and fast in photoshop...just cloning

very nice i probably would of been fooled if i was just looking at the area. also i was looking at the coordinates you mentioned (37°37'51.82"N 116°52'32.44"W) and if you look to the right you can see like a triangle with a series of circles in the middle. google maps doesnt even bring it up but earth does i dont know how to take a pic of it but its there. i wonder what it is cuz that is definatetly man made.

Here is the triangle mentioned: GE Triangle

Originally posted by allMIGHTY
Of course! They should have the right to do so, in my opinion.
That a government is getting security holes because of Google Earth should
not happen.

It is already dangerous because terrorists can use GE very good for planning
an attack. But still, it is a very cool tool!

I only wanted to show that there are propably a lot of altered places in GE and how easy it is to manipulate an satellite image.

By the way, try to switch between the original and the altered image. It is really
funny to see the difference.

Thanks for the replies!

Well, I don't think the 'terrorists' would need GE to do any planning. The CIA's satellites would suffice.

I'm a graphic designer as well, and currently in the process of getting my degree, and I can say that you did a fantastic job! It's a lot more work than just simply "clone stamping" the area, especially if you don't want it to look repetitious. Kudos dude

here is the triangle i mentioned earlier:


[edit on 8-1-2008 by drflux]

reply to post by drflux


Wow, what is that? Kind of looks like a crop circle.

Which triangle? I really dont know what you talking about!?
I can only see a dry piece of landscape.








Sry, i couldnt resist.

No seriously, this is a bomb target range where they train bombdrops and testing new bombs.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by allMIGHTY]

reply to post by allMIGHTY


Remarkable. I love the way you kept up with the ancient water flows. If I didn't know better, I would have thought that this is how the terrain there really is. Imagine spending hours on this, you can flawlessly combine real to cloned. All you would have to do is explain this:

ÿØÿà JFIF

H H ÿá[Exif MM *  
 


 
b
 
j
( 

1   r
2   Ž‡i 
¤ Ð
ü€ '
ü€ 'Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows 2008:01:06 19:11:04

"Oh, I just saved it through photoshop, thats all"

I'm convinced that this is going on. Think how easy the Clementine photo's would be to modify.

Starred, flagged.

Originally posted by Areal51
Now for a little conspiracy to spice this thread up.

In the original photo, does anybody else think that the "scorpion", which begins at the "head", the snow capped mountains, on the left side of the photo, body and tail curves and progresses northward, and ends at the "stinger", has been digitally inserted into that mountain range? It looks as if is was just placed there like a piece of jigsaw puzzle. It doesn't look as if it naturally belongs.

i know see what you mean theirs somethin about that part of the picture that doesnt seem right, it jus looks like it was "put" their to maybe cover up something else?

keeping the faith
TheSkepticSway

another example how google is altering its images

tinyurl.com/yuen2t

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Deloo]

reply to post by Deloo


I thought it was established that Google isnt altering anything...that they buy the images from other sources.

I actually dont have ANY issues with military installations being edited/burred out. Some things need to remain secret IMO.

I live on an Air Force base....and sometimes I think "is it safe that anyone can see where military personnel live? is that placing a big target on us?"

reply to post by greeneyedleo


I agree with you. It's not in the best interests of any nation to have accurate details/images of its military bases and assets freely available to the public. This is why I commented in my previous post on this thread that the Area 51 images are likely not showing all that is there.

They could even be showing things that are not there...

For those who might not like the sound of that and protest that this is ATS after all and we are trying to deny ignorance, I agree that while that goal is well and good, we also have to draw the line sometimes between exposing conspiracies and the necessity for maintaining standards of security.

Like quite a few others here, from previous "Government service" I have knowledge of certain military assets and bases (that in some cases the general public doesn't even know exist), but there is no way I'm going to release that information here or anywhere else. Okay, I'm bound for life by the Official Secrets Act, but even beyond that, it's just that some of the facts I had to know to do my job are not things I'd want any potential enemies of my country to know about.

So, to put it simply (in respect of Google's images), the general public just doesn't need to know.

I have no idea who alters Google's images, but whoever is involved in the process, I sure hope they have had to sign oaths of secrecy and also know how to keep their mouths shut.

And to greeneyedleo -- thank you!

Mike

[edit on 11-1-2008 by JustMike]

As Dennis Miller would say, I dont wanna get off on a rant here...
..but I'm going to.

Of course its safe, its a military base for god sakes.

Lets think of it this way, shielding the general public from seeing installations is retarded, none of us are a threat to anything.

The people who are threats to said facilities are the ones who dont need something as lame as google earth anyway. Other countries have lots and lots of satellites if they want to look at our facilities.

If a terrorist wants to attack a base it does't matter in the least that it's pixelated in google. There's no substitute for actual on the ground in person recon. Sorry thats just how it is.

For example, the bluring out of the nuclear power plants.. For what?, if someone's going to fly a plane into one does it not make sense he's chosen the spot in advance and is not relying on his co-pilot giving him directions through google earth, or worse if he did, directions into the 2300 ft pixelated area and hoping they can find the big giant plant once there?.. where's the common sense. And speaking of which there's something called eye on security that has tons of stuff thats been blured in resolutions much higher than they originally were blocked at.

The only logical reason I see for things like this is to hide things for which the american people can, would, and should take issue. I have no specific examples, but lets use nike missile sites as an example, the security on them was lax, they were on public lands for the most part, and someone might have said, HEY..why is this nuke 300 feet from my house. But obviously even if they were widely known, the threat to them would never come from americans anyway and hence hiding them from us doesn't mean that the soviet union didn't have that spot pushpin'd.

I like that you posted that little semi-secret but in plain site base in the UK. Think of it now, if your like me you've problably google earth driven your route to work before. Lets say you like the other 50 thousand people drive that route everyday and just assume its a little civilian runway, odds are that plain sight approach has thwarted 99.99% of people from taking any interest in it.

On the other hand now your googling your route to work and you notice that this very specific area is blured to an insane amount and done with meticulous precision. Most people still go meh, ok, whatever, but if your like me, now you decide to pull over on the freeway and just have a look over that gate and see whats going on. And if your like me your going to take your 10 megapixel dslr and post lots of images on the internet of this super secret base simply because you would like to know what it is. Now instead of 2 meter satellite imagery that wouldn't get 2 blinks, you've got a bunch of pictures taken with a 300mm telephoto lense from 800 feet away that you can read the personnel's nametags and tattoo's off of.

Nellis obviously has a lot of natural barriers working for it so there's no need to try to hide anything from the public, nothing your going to see from the air no matter what you interpret it as is of any quality or detail to be a threat to anyone.

Take the photographing of that nuke sub's propeller; navy policy says cover it, but when its out they didn't care. So what if the basic design is clear from 85 miles in space, all you really know about it is its aproximate size and how many blades it has. To the civilians its useless, to the forign sub designers its useless. Can anyone reproduce that from that picture? That's like reproducing an engine from nothing but a photograph taken from a passing aircraft.

Space is good for troop movements and possibly tracking subjects, anything more is anecdotial. Its fun to look for paterns and things in the sand sure but if you really believe there's anything out there get on your hiking gear and take a look. I gaurantee you there's not sensors all over the range, they require batteries

Well that's really great for 10-15 mins.

Well i don't know, but is google imagery really censored??

WOOT

kudos to some excellent photshopping. nice work man. unless you know what your lookiong for you cant see the ghost images but thats only if you know what your looking for. good job!!

This is very interesting, for instance the picture you mentioned of the place thats been edited over try this,
here is GE's flaw, hit the historical imagery button and go back as far as possible, and voila, revealed!

Interesting topic. lol

S&F for you OP,

Without reading the first lines and just clicking the pics my first thought was like damn now Google Earth is really painting out Area 51 this can't be true ^^ Good job OP, S+F for you !!!