[Texascavers] Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes
Given Louise's recent comments about speedy Photognomes and Gills suspicions that these mischievous pranksters were responsible for Photoshopping curious structures into the satellite photos of certain Mexican ponds, I think we need to clear up a few misconceptions about Photognomes and what they do. First, there is ample reason to believe that Photognomes, as Louise calls them, really do exist and that they can, and sometimes do, use Photoshop or some similar software tools to edit satellite photos provided to us by Google. I'm afraid, however, that Louise is slightly misinformed about where the Photognomes reside and the speed with which they do their deeds. I hope I'm not disillusioning anyone too brutally here, but the satellite views provided to us by Google are not sent directly to our computers from the satellites in real time. Instead, they are pieced together from many separate satellite photos, which may have been taken at different times, perhaps months or even years earlier in some cases. Consequently, the Photognomes don't have to ride around on satellites, editing images in real time. Instead, they have plenty of time to do their work right here on earth, much as would a typical human Photoshop user. They don't have to work with superhuman speed or even be real gnomes. In fact, I'll bet that most of them are Earthbound humans working for Google with Google's computers and software tools. What is it that Photognomes actually do? Well, somebody or something has to select the appropriate satellite photos and combine them together into a format that can be displayed to us by Google as a seemingly large continuous image, and this computerized representation has to be continually updated, partly as a result of newer photos becoming available, and partly as a result of changing demands and policies about what may and may not be shown to the public. Much of this work is probably automated, but there is little doubt that at least some humans are involved in the process and that they have the technical ability to modify images with Photoshop or some similar photo editing software before the images are made available to the public. There have been many reports of images being modified to obscure information that governments or other organizations considered sensitive for security reasons, as detailed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_map_images_with_missing_or_unclear_data Hence, there really is reason to believe that Google's human Photognomes can and sometimes do modify satellite images. Were any of these Photognomes mischievous enough to have Photoshopped strange patterns into the satellite images of two curious ponds near Almagre as a prank, as Gill suggested? Personally, I very much doubt that anyone actually did, but I can't deny that it is possible. It certainly is conceivable that someone in Google could have had the technical means and opportunity to do it. Gill's hypothesis is very difficult to prove or disprove. It is almost impossible to rule out on the basis of image analysis alone, because practically any pattern could be inserted into a digital image in this manner. Sometimes, forensic analysis of a digital image can reveal evidence that an image was modified, but it is virtually impossible for this kind of analysis to prove that an image was not modified. Generally, the best that can be said is, We couldn't find any evidence of tampering, so the image might be genuine. Some of the more common forensic analysis techniques are inconclusive in the curious ponds case. For example, one techniques is to examine shadows in different parts of the same picture to see if they imply contradictory information about the light source or sources. Within the curious pond patterns, however, considerable uncertainty exists about which, if any, of the dark lines and rectangles are actually shadows, so we can't be sure what, if anything, they imply about light sources. Similarly, one can compare image sizes of recognizable objects in different portions of a picture to see if they imply contradictory information about camera-to-subject distances, but this is not applicable to the curious pond patterns, because we can't recognize any objects of known size within the suspicious patterns. Another basic forensic technique is to see if a suspicious portion of an image matches some other portion of the image and, hence, was most likely copied. The patterns in the ponds, however, obviously don't resemble anything else in the vicinity, so if they were copied from somewhere, we have no idea where. Until we get more definitive information about what really caused the curious pond patterns or until someone does far more detailed forensic analysis than what I think any of us are willing to do, we probably will never know for sure whether or not Gill's suspicions about a Photognome prank are correct. Rod -Original Message-
Re: [Texascavers] Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes
As an interesting side note to this dramatic and terrifying exchange of ideas and thoughts, http://iwl.me/ identifies Rod Goke's writing style to be similar to Edgar Allen Poe. -No Kidding! Wavy Caver On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Rod Goke rod.g...@earthlink.net wrote: Given Louise's recent comments about speedy Photognomes and Gills suspicions that these mischievous pranksters were responsible for Photoshopping curious structures into the satellite photos of certain Mexican ponds, I think we need to clear up a few misconceptions about Photognomes and what they do. First, there is ample reason to believe that Photognomes, as Louise calls them, really do exist and that they can, and sometimes do, use Photoshop or some similar software tools to edit satellite photos provided to us by Google. I'm afraid, however, that Louise is slightly misinformed about where the Photognomes reside and the speed with which they do their deeds. I hope I'm not disillusioning anyone too brutally here, but the satellite views provided to us by Google are not sent directly to our computers from the satellites in real time. Instead, they are pieced together from many separate satellite photos, which may have been taken at different times, perhaps months or even years earlier in some cases. Consequently, the Photognomes don't have to ride around on satellites, editing images in real time. Instead, they have plenty of time to do their work right here on earth, much as would a typical human Photoshop user. They don't have to work with superhuman speed or even be real gnomes. In fact, I'll bet that most of them are Earthbound humans working for Google with Google's computers and software tools. What is it that Photognomes actually do? Well, somebody or something has to select the appropriate satellite photos and combine them together into a format that can be displayed to us by Google as a seemingly large continuous image, and this computerized representation has to be continually updated, partly as a result of newer photos becoming available, and partly as a result of changing demands and policies about what may and may not be shown to the public. Much of this work is probably automated, but there is little doubt that at least some humans are involved in the process and that they have the technical ability to modify images with Photoshop or some similar photo editing software before the images are made available to the public. There have been many reports of images being modified to obscure information that governments or other organizations considered sensitive for security reasons, as detailed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_map_images_with_missing_or_unclear_data Hence, there really is reason to believe that Google's human Photognomes can and sometimes do modify satellite images. Were any of these Photognomes mischievous enough to have Photoshopped strange patterns into the satellite images of two curious ponds near Almagre as a prank, as Gill suggested? Personally, I very much doubt that anyone actually did, but I can't deny that it is possible. It certainly is conceivable that someone in Google could have had the technical means and opportunity to do it. Gill's hypothesis is very difficult to prove or disprove. It is almost impossible to rule out on the basis of image analysis alone, because practically any pattern could be inserted into a digital image in this manner. Sometimes, forensic analysis of a digital image can reveal evidence that an image was modified, but it is virtually impossible for this kind of analysis to prove that an image was not modified. Generally, the best that can be said is, We couldn't find any evidence of tampering, so the image might be genuine. Some of the more common forensic analysis techniques are inconclusive in the curious ponds case. For example, one techniques is to examine shadows in different parts of the same picture to see if they imply contradictory information about the light source or sources. Within the curious pond patterns, however, considerable uncertainty exists about which, if any, of the dark lines and rectangles are actually shadows, so we can't be sure what, if anything, they imply about light sources. Similarly, one can compare image sizes of recognizable objects in different portions of a picture to see if they imply contradictory information about camera-to-subject distances, but this is not applicable to the curious pond patterns, because we can't recognize any objects of known size within the suspicious patterns. Another basic forensic technique is to see if a suspicious portion of an image matches some other portion of the image and, hence, was most likely copied. The patterns in the ponds, however, obviously don't resemble anything else in the vicinity, so if they were copied from somewhere, we have no idea where. Until we get more definitive information about what
Re: [Texascavers] Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes
Nevermore! ;) -Original Message- From: Don Cooper wavyca...@gmail.com Sent: Jul 23, 2010 12:14 PM To: Rod Goke rod.g...@ieee.org Cc: Louise Power power_lou...@hotmail.com, Texas Cavers texascavers@texascavers.com Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes As an interesting side note to this dramatic and terrifying exchange of ideas and thoughts, http://iwl.me/ identifies Rod Goke's writing style to be similar to Edgar Allen Poe. -No Kidding! Wavy Caver - Visit our website: http://texascavers.com To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com
RE: [Texascavers] Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes
Rod, Thanks for the analysis. Having worked with Photoshop since 1988, I'm well aware of it's possibilities and the work involved. Really appreciated, however, the information on photomapping. I'm sure people who have never worked on it before really enjoyed it. Louise
