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. The > exceptions might simply be darker surfaces instead of shadows (perhaps > resulting from different kinds of crops, or crops in different stages of > growth, planting, or harvesting). Especially, in the east pond, there are a > number of thin horizontal dark lines, each along the north edge of a > corresponding rectangular block, suggesting that these lines might be genuine > shadows from rectangular fields of crops which are tall enough to cast > noticeable shadows but which are less tall than the trees and buildings > elsewhere in the photos. > > After examining these shadows, I still suspect that the photos could be > genuine and that each "curious pond" might contain multiple rectangular > fields or garden patches planted in what once was a water filled pond. The > eastern "pond" probably originated as a shallow natural pond. The western > "pond" probably was created behind a manmade dam and might have subsequently > filled in with silt to the point where there was little room left for water. > I've seen a few manmade ponds do this, sometimes to the point where water was > only a few inches deep behind the dam (in spite of what the dam builder had > intended). Once this happens, it's not hard to imagine why the owner of a > silted in pond might decide to convert it to a place for growing crops > instead of trying to restore it as a pond. I'll refrain from speculating on > what kinds of crops might be growing in these mysterious places. > > That's my interpretation of the shadow clues. What do you see in the shadows? > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > >From: Gill Edigar <gi...@att.net> > >Sent: Jul 20, 2010 9:54 PM > >To: Geary Schindel <gschin...@edwardsaquifer.org> > >Cc: texascavers@texascavers.com > >Subject: Re: [Texascavers] RE: Almagre > > > >They are definitely ponds--with something in um. The westernmost one > >has an earthen dam on the west side and is fed by a stream channel > >which looks dry. There is something very PhotoShoppy about the margins > >of the 2 unknown inset images. The chaparral comes right up to the > >edge of one and also has a look of being messed with, like an image > >splice. There are roads leading to both features but they seem little > >used--untypical of a commercial venture. And no support structure, as > >has been pointed out. I don't buy the aquaculture business--too > >irregular. I don't buy the aperture business one bit. I smell a rat. > >My immediate guess is that the person doing the image splicing was > >hitting the weed a little heavy that afternoon and dropped in a couple > >of images cropped from Angkor Wat or somewhere. Given the opportunity, > >I would have done such a thing--back when I was younger, of course. > >Some of the structures in both ponds look like roof gables with one in > >the sun and one in the shade, maybe reversed or posterized to confuse > >the issue. Has anybody checked the sun angles in relation to the pond > >structures? I intend to do that next. It's all we need in the middle > >of a worldwide economic crisis, BP replacing the water in the Gulf of > >Mexico with sweet crude, Iran making atomic bombs out of old X-ray > >machines, and now this, some bored GIS graduate student working her > >way through school splicing satellite images decides to have a little > >fun with Google Earth. Who can we trust anymore? > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > >For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com > To unsubscribe, e-mail: texascavers-unsubscr...@texascavers.com > For additional commands, e-mail: texascavers-h...@texascavers.com >
