Where is the Arctic? Why are both poles blurred?

Hope you are well.


I've been meaning to ask this for sometime now.

Have any of you noticed that the Arctic (North pole) does not appear on Google Maps, nor does it appear on Google Earth.

The Antarctic does appear, yet it is blurred out.

I highly doubt that it is because satellites cannot zoom in to see.
Why is this blocked from the public?

I noticed this because I own a map of the world which dates back to 1974, this map clearly shows a huge Arctic above Greenland, which according to Google is no longer there.

Is it gone, is it still there? Why is it hidden from the public?
See for yourselves;

maps.google.com...
earth.google.com...

This being said I suggest you watch the video provided below;
disclose.tv...

I myself am curious about the Hollow Earth theory, I don't necessarily believe it, but it is nonetheless interesting. There are many caves around the world that go for miles and miles below ground.

The earth may not be hollow but it does have many deep openings.

Enjoy and please post your opinion.


Peace.

First off, Drewdatt, let's clear up the whole satellite imagery angle of your question: Google Earth does not consist entirely of satellite imagery. From an article available at Google Librarian:

Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight.

Google Earth is not constantly updated and Google does not (as some people believe) have their own satellite in orbit to update Google Earth images.

More specific to your question, there are any number of reasons why the Arctic would not be mapped in as much detail as a more densely inhabited areas. For one, is this 1974 map of the Earth a satellite photograph or an actual map? If it is a satellite photo, what time of year was it taken - and equally important, what time of year were the Google Earth images taken? If the 1974 image was taken in December and the bulk of the Google Earth images were taken in June, you'd expect there to be a difference in ice coverage in the Arctic.

As for another possible explanation (and not to put too fine a point on it), thinking about this from Google's perspective, why bother mapping either the arctic or Antarctic in any particular detail? Nobody lives in those places, and while I think it would be interesting to look at those places, Google is a for-profit corporation. They probably have better things to do - like map places where there are people and/or natural resources - than post pictures of mile after mile of icy wasteland. They probably don't need to eat up server space with the data, either.

Originally posted by PhloydPhan

Google Earth is not constantly updated and Google does not (as some people believe) have their own satellite in orbit to update Google Earth images.

Anyhoo, I've noticed that there are multiple converging lines, the edges of various photographs, coming together at the poles. This hints that the computer programs they use to accurately place images on the virtual model surface cannot properly deal with the single two points on the planet where the images come together. It looks like a software fault, rather than a grand scheme to hide inner-earth inhabitants from the general populace.

But I can see how you could make that connection

watch_the_rocks, what "connection" are you talking about? I never suggested anything about an "inner earth" or any other such nonsense, nor could anything in my entire post - let alone the section you decided to quote - be misconstrued to suggest that I did. I was simply pointing out to Drewdatt that Google Earth is a mish-mash off data from different sources taken at different times.

If you have a point to make about the software used to stitch together images by Google Earth, make your point - and stop putting words into other peoples' mouths.

ROFL PhloydPhan, sorry if I've offended you. I was actually making a mockery of the OP's post, not yours, and the quote I displayed of your post was my attempt at displaying amusement that some people actually do believe this.

edit: I think it is only prudent that you offer an apology also.


[edit on 27/12/2007 by watch_the_rocks]

I am curious as well about why there are no satellite images of either pole. I have only been able to find one, and it wasn't even a direct shot. I heard somewhere that there is some sort of government regulation that won't allow the public release of satellite images of the poles. Who knows if that is true or not.

As much as I know:
The earth map projection they choosed as base to store their content doesn't allows them to cover the poles. There is simple no addressable space where the poles in this projection are: In the infinite. Therefore everything above and below a certain coordinate is cut off. This is valid for the North and the South Pole. On a flat google map you should be able to detect where the cut happens.

On the Globe the poles are probabily simple 'fake' added or the last info stretched.

It's a ridden to me why they didn't choose a better projection as base where they could handle the poles. I see the missing poles as very distrubing.
Maybe they didn't think of showing a 3D Globe the time back when they started with this project?

Ok, going to try this again, first couple of posts didn't work.

The poles are not blurred out, more than likely it is the site you are using.
Check out these links of images from "INTELSAT 10 (IS-10)
35782 km above 0°1'N 68°28'E";

South pole

North pole

Looks like three is a charm.


[edit on 27-12-2007 by ADVISOR]

reply to post by PhloydPhan


Good one to both you and watch_the_rocks.
I for one I am not buying, give me some real shots, some that I can zoom into as most places. Whether or not it has people is none of my concern, for scientific purposes lets please have the map of the Arctic displayed properly as other places on earth.

We can zoom in to pinpoint Area 51, yet we cannot see the Arctic?

reply to post by ADVISOR


Interesting but those images mean nothing to me
Please explain why this site is more credible than Google Earth or Maps, or the reason that very few sites actually hold images of the Arctic.

I completely understand that Google may not own a satellite and that images are from various sources, but I also think you are naive in believing that Google may not actually have one up there.

Think of this, you own a billion dollar corporation, you own a system in which maps out the Earth and stars, yet you do not own any satellite. You have no means of photographing your own content??

If Google is going to charge 400$ fee for Google maps pro, then I'm not going to buy it if the satellite imaging is not their own. How is that legitimate? Why should anybody believe its the real thing?

To be so quick to closing this down, only proves you are trying to shut something up.

Peace.

reply to post by Karlhungis


Hey Karlhungis, I heard the same as well.

I also heard that unless you have a permit from the federal govt it is illegal to explore caves for example if you find one in the forest. I also heard that no maps or location of caves are released to the public even under the FOIA. Unfortunately I don't have the source, but I will search for it.

Seeing we know there are extensive caves all around the world, wouldn't we want to map them out, see how far they go?

We have been living on this Earth for many years, yet we still know very little about it.

Peace

Drewdatt, you need to realize that Google isn't in the satellite imaging business - they're in the information technology business. They're just a middleman for the images you see on Google Maps/Google Earth. Granted, Google does access to enough money (probably) to order, launch, and operate their own satellite, but why should they bother when they can just purchase the imagery from another source?

Even if Google did want to launch and operate their own satellite, that's a non-trivial expense. A company called GeoEye is one of the best known companies in the private-sector satellite imaging business, and they're preparing to launch a new imaging satellite - called GeoEye-1 - sometime in the first half of next year. The satellite itself is insured for $270 million dollars - a reasonable approximation of how much the satellite probably costs. GeoEye-1 is set to launch on a Delta II variant which, very approximately and in year 2000 dollars, costs about $60 million a shot. So, altogether, GeoEye is spending about $310 million to build and launch this satellite. This total does not include costs of operating the satellite (physical control center and computers, control personnel, guys to sweep the floor, etc).

Now let's pretend that Google wanted to do the same thing. If we divide $310 million in construction and launch costs by the $400 subscription price for Google Earth Pro, we end up with a big number: 775,000. That's how many subscriptions (at least at $400 per subscription) Google would need to sell to break even on an Earth observation satellite of their own. It is cheaper for Google - and thus for their paying customers - if Google purchases relevant imagery from another source and more or less ignores the parts of the globe their paying customers (not you and not me) aren't concerned with.

If you prefer to buy directly from the source, as it were, you can always order imagery from a private company like the aforementioned GeoEye - contact info is available here. They don't publish costs for images, but in a writeup on their year 2000 request for images of Groom Lake, FAS reported that images cost between $1000 and $5000, depending on image size and what territory you want an image of.

I'd ask that you take a closer look at ADVISOR's actions. No one was trying to shut anything down or (to use your words) "shut something up" - we're just trying to answer your question.

Aside to watch_the_rocks: Sorry for the misunderstanding. If I'd been properly caffeinated at the time I probably would have got your point...

reply to post by PhloydPhan


PhloydPhan, thanks for the info!
I understand what you are saying, yet my point still holds.
Although this information is very interesting, it still does not explain.

Why no images of the arctic? The antarctic is available to a certain extent, you can zoom into several locations, but the Arctic is completely unavailable.

For those claiming that theres nothing there, then why is the Antarctic visible? Technically there isn't anything there either.

There is no reason it shouldn't be available, unless someone would want to hide something, whether it be concerning the melting of the North, a secret base or an entrance to a hollow earth et al.

Thanks for trying to answer the questions and I apologize to ADVISOR for jumping to conclusions, but my question still remains.

Why is Google blocking the North pole?

Peace.

Drewdatt, have you considered emailing your question directly to Google? Just a thought...

A quick search of the Google Earth Help site turned up this thread. Apparently the poster calling himself Seth Russell has asked this question previously and been told that Google only provides data on landmasses, and the Arctic is not a landmass - the exact extent of the ice sheet varies widely from year to year and season to season, so there is some logic to that.

Given that Google is hosting a Help forum that allows posts like this, I highly doubt that they're engaged in covering anything up.

It is also worth noting - at least IMHO - that Google isn't "blocking" anything. They're not a public service, and they're not under any obligation to post any data at all. Not posting images of the Arctic is different from "blocking" said images.

reply to post by PhloydPhan


I have, without response as of yet!

As for the Arctic not being a landmass; obviously the person who claims the Arctic is not a landmass does not know what a landmass is.

Defined by Google; Land mass refers to the total area of a country or geographical region (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands)

and

a zone or area resembling an island

If Google does claim this as a reason, its not a viable one, and the reason about the way Google draws the tiles is bull too.

For those of you who have been to the Arctic know that it is abundant with life including; the Arctic Hare, lemming, muskox, caribou, the Arctic Fox, wolves and the polar bear.

It is highly rich in mineral deposits, such as gas and oils

Canadian Prime Minister has ordered 8 patrol ships with helicopter pads and a deep water post to be deployed at an undisclosed location.

Russians have recently sent 100 scientists to the North pole, without specifying the reason for study even though they have been actively studying the pole since 1937 and which have collected extensive data over decades.

They placed a flag at the bottom of the ocean which has never been attempted before.

The US is also rushing to the North pole

Simply some more info, until I get an official response from Google.
Look it up for yourself!

Here is what it "apparently" looks like.
upload.wikimedia.org...

Again, I ask, why is the Arctic hidden? Its huge, its filled with life, it has vegetation and there are people living on it.

There is a reason it is hidden, for those of you viewing this post, you should find out

Peace.




[edit on 30-12-2007 by Drewdatt]

Originally posted by Drewdatt
As for the Arctic not being a landmass; obviously the person who claims the Arctic is not a landmass does not know what a landmass is.

Defined by Google; Land mass refers to the total area of a country or geographical region (which may include discontinuous pieces of land such as islands)

and

a zone or area resembling an island

The Arctic Ocean (there is a hint in the name) is not a landmass. The maps you linked to do not show the Arctic ice sheet because it is not a landmass. It changes, week on week. No matter how far you stretch the definition, the Ice sheet is not a landmass. It is merely a frozen ocean.

Antarctica, however, is a landmass. It is a very large continent in fact. If you actually look at Antarctica on the maps you linked to, it is also shown without Ice cover, the same as the north.

Seems to me that you've had several good explanations as to why the maps do not show it, yet you seem like you have an agenda. You requested people to post their opinions, yet you try to shoot them down with weak logic and little to no common sense.

Bottom line is, it is pointless to show on these particular maps the northern or southern Ice sheets. It would merely be an approximation of what the ice would be like when the map was drawn or when the pics taken, not an accurate depiction of what the are actually looks like. By leaving out the ice, they can show what lies beneath, which does not change depending on the weather.

EDIT: I might also add that, although I may be wrong, I believe it is much harder to task a satellite to go over the polar regions than it is to image any other place on earth.


[edit on 30/12/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by Drewdatt
reply to post by PhloydPhan

 

For those claiming that theres nothing there, then why is the Antarctic visible? Technically there isn't anything there either.

Thats incorrect. We have 3 manned weather stations down there, and many other countries do as well and during the summer months, antarctica is swarming with scientists. I have friends down there at the moment so, I am 100% sure that if there was anything strange happening down there, I would be one of the first to know about it.

reply to post by stumason


I am aware that we are told it is not a landmass, but then again I have no "official" proof of it, and who is credible as source.

All I want to know is why we cannot see it, it not being a landmass is a ridiculous reason. Whether or not it changes over time, many locations on Google map aren't always updated regularly.

I believe that it is hidden and not for the reasons we are being told. IE; It's not a landmass or we want to see whats beneath, or because it regularly melts and freezes, c'mon!

As for the weak logic or little to know common sense, well I'm perhaps less of a sheep than you, all I want is for it to be shown for what it is.

and my agenda is to make it known, thats all there is to it
some 600 + peeps already read, so thats cool.

I may not have all the answers, and may not know all the mumbo jumbo, but as long as the topic is out there, then thats good enough.

Peace.

The Arctic has several stations as well. Governments from around the world are currently studying the North and South Poles.

The Arctic is the largest frozen body in the world.
With life, plants, and people as any other place in the world
Some people are interested in seeing / exploring this region

No one has yet answered the question

Would that not help people judge the melting of the pole, by providing people with updates as any other spot on Google Earth?

I think it would, and people would truly see the evolution of the cap.
Obviously there are some satellites up there that could provide the data, why not?

Peace.

Okay, Drewdatt, let me see if I have this right. Even though you've been offered several rational explanations as to why the Arctic doesn't show up on Google Earth, you're continuing to argue that somebody, somewhere, is covering something up - but you don't have any idea who, what, or how.

Does that pretty much sum this thread up so far? I thought so.

If you're really concerned about this subject - providing information about the melting polar ice caps, learning about resources available in the Arctic, and helping people learn what is "really" going on in the Arctic, if anything - remember that GIYF: Google Is Your Friend. A whopping 5 seconds of my time searching for "Arctic Climate Research" turned up relevant, reliable - at least in my opinion, maybe not in yours - links to NOAA, the National Science Foundation, and the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, among others. Send out some emails, do some genuine research, and get back to the rest of us.

If, in future threads, it is your intention to dismiss well-intentioned, well-informed, or even just plain rational responses to your questions, please include that information in your initial post. I, for one, will honor your request and mind my own business.