Confirmed Google Earth manipulation of imagery

I have always been an opponent of those who've claimed that Google Earth can and does manipulate the imagery it provides to us. They usually cite that these manipulations are usually carried out by GE and done at the request of the government/military to remove or make less obvious various "sensitive" data that may have been imaged unintentionally.

But finally, I have to change my long standing attitude and agree with them that yes, when necessary, Google Earth does in fact manipulate the imagery it feeds us as the following examples will show.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/967d2b2b3a7a.jpg[/atsimg]

The rightmost image was obtained from GE approx 6 months ago ... the leftmost image was obtained from GE today (10 July, 2009). Even though the original image was not of high quality, sufficient detail was still visible to show significant structural details. Now compare that original image with the latest one. It's immediately apparent that significant image degradation has been applied and a lot of the structural detail originally visible has now been lost.

Now why am I concerned about this loss of detail ?

The original image was located by myself in the military restricted southern Papoose mountain range of Area 51 not far from the infamous S4 area. I had a PERSONAL theory regarding this image but initially didn't make much of a big deal about it. But in the last couple of months I've been displaying this image on various online forums and truthfully receiving what can only be described as entirely abusive feedback so I'm NOT going to bother peddling my PERSONAL viewpoint here.
But suffice it to say that the online GE version of the image remained untouched and unaltered for months UNTIL I began showing it to others online and then shortly afterwards I find that GE have "manipulated" and "degraded" the data content of the image.

Now why would they do that if there was nothing to hide ?
Obviously removing by "photoshopping" the image would have immediately indicated that there was something of extreme interest to be seen there and so the next best option was exactly what has happened ... leave the image intact but significantly degrade it and make it less obvious.

The image below gives a slightly better view ... all that I have done is to increase the contrast, brightness and colour saturation to try to bring out additional details ... otherwise COMPLETELY UNTOUCHED.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ccd9c62ed19d.jpg[/atsimg]

Anyway, just wanted to post 100% confirmation of GE image manipulation.

Uh.........
GE do censor out many things, and it's all public knowledge, there's even a wiki article on it.
This, however, appears to be nothing and the picture from 6 months ago is the same as the one today. Not sure what you think it is. A giant grass statue that the A51 employees built to worship Aliens?

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

...the leftmost image was obtained from GE today (10 July, 2009)...

Dude!!

The leftmost image looks better to me (if only marginally).

Really, I cannot see what the fuss is! Reminds me of going to the optometrist --- "Which do you like better? One --- or, two?"

Yes, the newer image is a higher resolution version of the same spot.
I see no difference in the actual formation itself. I am confused as to what the OP sees though since he wrote such a long post and sees he's posted it around the Internet.

The only difference is the contrast is higher on the left image...

reply to post by Nventual


Huh ??? how can you say there's NO difference between the image from 6 months ago and the current image ? It's plainly obvious that the current image is much darker and sections that were clearly visible previously have now been plunged into shadow thereby "degrading" the original data content of the image.

Don't worry about what I think the image is ... I'm just pointing out that there IS a significant and noticeable loss of image quality in the recent GE version.

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername


So you are saying that you expect our government to let Google post pictures of sensitive military locations on the Internet for the whole world to see? Why in the world would they allow that? That would be stupid and could possibly give your enemies an advantage.

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

 

So you are saying that you expect our government to let Google post pictures of sensitive military locations on the Internet for the whole world to see? Why in the world would they allow that? That would be stupid and could possibly give your enemies an advantage.

Away from the original intent of this thread .... but think of who these potential "enemies" may be.

Russians ... have their own satellites
Chinese .... have their own satellites
etc, etc

In fact, virtually every major military power has satellite surveillance of their own or alternatively can easily purchase satelite imagery from the source ... I strongly doubt that any of them would conduct a war against the US relying on Google imagery ... well, maybe Kim Jong-il would ... but he's certifiably crazy :-)

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername


What about Iran, Syria, Hamas, Pakistan, Cuba, Terrorists, etc....?

What about individuals both in the US and around the world. Do you want everyone in the world to know what our most secret aircraft look like or what kind of military bases we have?



[edit on 9-7-2009 by grapesofraft]

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername

 

What about Iran, Syria, Hamas, Pakistan, Cuba, etc....?

What about individuals both in the US and around the world. Do you want everyone in the world to know what our most secret aircraft look like or what kind of military bases we have?

As I mentioned in my previous reply, anyone who has the finances can purchase ORIGINAL hires satellite imagery from various sources and not have to rely on GE.
So yes, Iran, Syria, etc can "spy" on the US along with the best of them if they so desire.

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername


Well I dont know if that is even true, but even if it is at least we do not hand them the stuff for free.

I can tell what he's talking about. The landscape of the image IS enhanced, but the 'object' depicted was darkened at the same time as the landscape, which is what it appears they wanted all along.

I'm going to go out there when I say that yes, indeed that weird 'object' does kind of resemble some type of unknown (to us) humanoid 'machine' complete with armament.

Hey, if japan can build a giant gundam figure, why not this right? Makes you think at least.

Originally posted by Genus
I can tell what he's talking about. The landscape of the image IS enhanced, but the 'object' depicted was darkened at the same time as the landscape, which is what it appears they wanted all along.

I'm going to go out there when I say that yes, indeed that weird 'object' does kind of resemble some type of unknown (to us) humanoid 'machine' complete with armament.

Hey, if japan can build a giant gundam figure, why not this right? Makes you think at least.

Yes, thats EXACTLY what I'm trying to show ... that even if the background detail is improved compared to the original image, the main image detail has been degraded as if to make it less obvious and clear as to what is being seen there.

(And yes, you've reached a similar conclusion to mine regarding whats being "seen" in the image ... well done )

Hah, thanks, I bet other people wanted to say it at least even if they didn't actually do it.

We have to at least say it's a 'possible' conclusion and not dismiss it. Japan has built some of the most sophisticated robots on the planet, so do I think it's possible the image might be depicting a new type of 'robot' built for battle? Hell yeah it's possible, they have contests all the time with mini robots, so it's not 'that' big a leap of logic.

Satellite images are top-down views.. how can it be a robot? What are the co-ordinates?

Dude! You found a man-body with a glowing ring & an unknown device? Good for you. No. Really. Bravo.

Google is dangerous.

Microsoft is in the Dow for a reason. Can you say Nah Shun Ullllll Suh Cure It Eeeeeee?

Kill Google as soon as possible. Really. Kill Google.

Do you really think Google is worth $400 a share? Please. That is the biggest scam going. I think George Soros is personally shorting every single share. I think George Soros is shorting every share into oblivion and when they pull the plug Soros is going to walk away with everybody's money. Everybody dumb enough to buy Google that is.

Google is a trap.

Google is a Ponzi Scheme of enormous proportions.

Google can not withstand the Intelization/Microsoftization of the world. Face it. Another Linux distribution is not needed. The end.

The end.

THE

END.

reply to post by Genus


It's been many months since I 1st stumbled across this "interesting" image and the more I look at it, the more I'm convinced it's exactly what it seems to be ... and that's a technological device.

But as I mentioned in my first post, I'm NOT going to attempt to ram this down anyone's throat as I've learned from earlier experience that almost 100% of people who I show this to react very strongly negative as if they DON'T want the possibility of it existing to disturb their mindset and perception of their view of the world.

However, if you (or anyone) do want to ask questions regarding the image and MY interpretation, then sure I'll answer to the best of my ability and knowledge.

And the fact that there's obviously been an attempt to "muddy" the latest version of the image by GE only serves to lend support to there being something of interest in the image that they would prefer not to be analysed and debated.

reply to post by afoolbyanyothername


reply to post by afoolbyanyothername


Do you consider it plausible that you're looking for something that simply is not there? Perhaps?

Perception, is an individual thing and in this instance you're firmly individual in yours.

Good luck, I hope you discover the truth behind this apparent anomaly.

However, please don't insult the ATS user by making remarks like this: ''I've learned from earlier experience that almost 100% of people who I show this to react very strongly negative as if they DON'T want the possibility of it existing to disturb their mindset and perception of their view of the world''

I valued your OPINION up until that point...



One might question why the vast majority of ATSers that would appear to react very neagtively toward this thread? It is entirely possible they share my view and that this is utter nonsense? Clearly.

Please don't blame him, it's a typical frustrated answer at the lack of open minds, so let's relax.

Now, i'm not say the object 'is' a machine, just that it looks like one. The body could be a tree, the head a big rock, and the blue ring a body of water.

Just saying the technology 'is' available and should be given consideration, as well as the fact the object 'was' indeed hidden more in direct response to exposure.

National Security would include an experimental armed 'robot' too.

I agree that there is a difference between the 2 pictures posted.

But I do not think that the object is a technological device ( although I can see the resemblance to a mars rover or perhaps Wall-E )
I`m leaning more towards the idea of it being a structure, to me it looks like one main building with a circular construction around it...

Too bad that the image quality is so poor...