Rod,
Are you seriously suggesting that somehow the satellite is Photoshopping this
image? Being a Photoshopper myself, I hardly thing that's possible unless they
have a Photognome in the satellite busily Photoshopping each image before you
can pick it up on your computer. Oh-kay! Let's hear it for the speedy
Photognomes!
Louise
> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 06:06:17 -0400
> From: rod.g...@earthlink.net
> To: texascavers@texascavers.com
> Subject: [Texascavers] RE: Almagre -- clues in the shadows
>
> Checking sun angles, as Gill suggested, is a good idea. Notice that all of
> the recognizable objects (mostly trees and buildings) outside the ponds are
> casting shadows toward the north and perhaps slightly toward the northwest,
> suggesting that the photos were taken at or slightly before noon, when the
> sun was nearly overhead but somewhat south and perhaps slightly east of a
> directly overhead position. Notice also that practically all of the trees
> appear to be covered with green leaves, suggesting that the photos were taken
> sometime during the warmer months, when non-evergreens normally have green
> leaves. Therefore, the sun angle probably is higher in the sky than it would
> be during winter, but it's still low enough to cast some shadows towards the
> north.
>
> Don had an interesting suggestion that perhaps the two curious pools were
> reflecting sunlight directly into the satellite camera, causing the image to
> overexpose in these locations and, consequently, triggering some kind of
> automatic post processing, which might inadvertently generate strange
> artifacts in an attempt to compensate for the overexposure. What do the
> shadows tell us about this theory? Since the sun was somewhat south and
> perhaps slightly east of overhead when the photos were taken, the satellite
> would have to have been somewhat north and perhaps slightly west of overhead
> at the time in order to receive directly reflected sunlight from the pond
> surfaces. If this were the case, the satellite would not be looking straight
> down but, instead, would be looking somewhat southward, such that we would
> see the north walls of nearby buildings in addition to their roofs. It
> appears to me, however, that this is not the case and that the satellite is
> actually looking directly down on the buildings just west of the eastern
> pond. Furthermore, it would seem most reasonable that a satellite camera
> would normally be aimed directly downward, because this would allow the
> satellite to view its subjects more closely than would any other camera
> angle. A satellite looking directly downward would not have received directly
> reflected sunlight from a mirror-like pond surface, because the sun was not
> directly overhead. Notice also that there appears to be another small pond
> slightly northwest of the western curious pond and that this pond shows no
> sign of either overexposure or strange structure. As much as I admire the
> creativity of Don's theory, I don't think it's consistent with what we see in
> the photos.
>
> I agree with Gill that the western curious pond has an earthen dam on its
> west side, but I'm not convinced of his Photoshop tampering theory. Photoshop
> tampering is almost impossible to rule out completely, of course, since just
> about any kind of image can be created that way. There is, however, some
> shadow evidence suggesting that the images could be genuine. Notice that the
> trees along the south edge of the western pond appear to be casting shadows
> onto the southern portions of the pond's structured area. The eastern pond
> has fewer trees along its south edge, but the trees that are there, likewise,
> appear to be casting shadows onto the southern portions of this pond's
> structured area.
>
> Shadows of objects within the structures areas of the two ponds are difficult
> to interpret, since we are not sure what these objects are. Without more
> information about what we are observing, its difficult to distinguish shadows
> from dark surfaces, and, of course, anything could result from Photoshop
> tampering. There are, however, some shadow-like dark features within the
> structured areas that look like they could be genuine shadows, given the
> observed sun angle. For example, with the sun being somewhat south of a
> directly overhead position and having very little east-west offset, we would
> expect to see shadows along the north edge of any raised object but would see
> little or no shadows along the east or west edges. Hence, shadows from
> rectangular objects mostly would be expected to appear as dark horizontal
> (east-west) lines in the photos, rather than dark vertical (north-south)
> lines. It appears to me that this is the predominant trend in the structured
> areas of both ponds (i.e., most of the dark shadow-like lines are horizontal
> rather than vertical), suggesting that they could be genuine shadows. T
