I cannot read Arabic so yeah it's irrelevant.
Try again. You'll eventually get it. I did immediately after you told us that the Google satellite could get the same clarity and resolution of that location.
Trump tweeted an image from a spy satellite, declassified document shows
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
I cannot read Arabic so yeah it's irrelevant.
Try again. You'll eventually get it. I did immediately after you told us that the Google satellite could get the same clarity and resolution of that location.
I guess you guys are all rocket scientists. You know the rest.
It doesn't take even a janitor scientist to see what I see after T.A. pointed out that the Google satellite could have taken the same picture with the same clarity.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Not sure on their differences. B&W is often used for higher resolution, but I'm certain the KH-11 can take color pics since, allegedly, it's based upon the Hubble.
I know you can see it.
Here's a hint: The Google Maps images are always taken directly down.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
^^^
Never worked in intell.
Gee, for a historian, you don't seem to know much about how and why such satellites are used. Do you know how the US figured out the USSR was shipping rockets to Cuba or Migs to Nicaragua? A science known as "Crateology". LOL
The higher the resolution of a photo, the more accurately an object can be assessed. Again, Chief, you are being political and not military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crateology
But true, nonetheless.
Did WWIII start over this and I missed it?
0/10.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
There are plenty of better images on the Internet too. Many are taken from ground level.
Civilian satellite images of the accident
Civilian satellite images of the accident
There are plenty of better images on the Internet too. Many are taken from ground level.
Civilian satellite images of the accident
I am waiting for you to notice something. I gave a hint to Gay Uncle.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
You might as well just cough up what you are hinting at.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
That's a matter of presentation. Note this picture is at an angle:
Although not proficient with it, Google Earth allows manipulating the angle of view.
See now you are almost right on the target. As they told Luke Skywalker, "STAY ON TARGET!"
Another hint: What is the difference between the usual Google Maps images and this image in particular?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
No, they aren't. Go to any large city and take a look at the skyscrapers etc. They are usually taken at a slant.
Good effort. Not quite there. At least you, like Faggot Uncle is right on the target.
So no right answer (even though they were close) from T.A. and Uncle as of yet?
If you both give up, you will get my answer. (Both of you got 90% correct).
If you both give up, you will get my answer. (Both of you got 90% correct).
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Just spit it out already...
All right then!
You both are correct about the angle. When you mentioned that Google could have taken a picture of that same location with the same clarity and quality, it got me to be thinking. I thought... hmmm Google Maps usually have images that was taken from directly up, not at any angle. And you mentioned Google Maps 3D, which, technically, you may be close to being correct. The problem is that those are reconstructions of images from all over. When you rotate it, zoom in and out and whatnots, you notice the usual AI estimates and the usual computer graphics trickery. So not the same thing.
Now to the nexus of the question and the issue...
Eyeballing the image in question, you will notice that it was taken at an angle of over 45 degrees from a distance.
I am going to be conservative and say it was at 50 degrees. And the assumption that it was near the perigee which is around 400 km (around 247 miles).
So let's say it was taken at 50 degrees which the image was taken from a long distance.
Input two numbers here.
From this we see this:
1. The location was around 476 km (295 miles) from directly below the satellite.
2. By calculation, the distance from the satellite to the location was 622 km (386 miles).
What conclusions can you draw from the information provided?