texascavers Digest 23 Jul 2010 16:14:25 -0000 Issue 1110
Topics (messages 15531 through 15544):
Re: Wes Skiles
15531 by: Keith Goggin
15532 by: Brandon Cook
15543 by: Leslie Bell
Re: A day at the beach - this is SUCH an upper!
15533 by: Fritz Holt
15539 by: Rod Goke
Re: first cave trip
15534 by: Pete Lindsley
15535 by: Mark Minton
15538 by: Rod Goke
15540 by: Mark.Alman.L-3com.com
Re: first cave trip, and monkeys
15536 by: Logan McNatt
driving question - TAG area
15537 by: David
Landslide in Italy
15541 by: Gill Edigar
Mythes, Realities, and Suspicions about Photognomes
15542 by: Rod Goke
15544 by: Don Cooper
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
<[email protected]>
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
<[email protected]>
To post to the list, e-mail:
<[email protected]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
"Here in Hogtown we are crushed. Wes was the best, larger than life, a
motorcycle riding, beer drinking, bad joke telling, world traveling, deep
diving
superhero."
Amen to that. We're crushed here in Houston as well. I will miss him a great
deal.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Family's statement, courtesy of Jill Heinerth:
Wes Skiles' Family Statement:
Thursday, July, 22, 2010
1500PM
The Skiles family has asked me to distribute this statement:
Wes Skiles died while diving off West Palm Beach on Wednesday, July 21.
He was conducting a routine filming dive when the accident occurred. No
one else was injured.
There are no further details regarding the accident at this time. The
exact cause has not yet been determined and we are awaiting official
reports.
Wes has been a tireless advocate for springs, springsheds and the
conservation and protection of Florida’s water resources.
At the time of his death, he was excited about the upcoming issue of
National Geographic Magazine, which features his photographs and the
cover shot. We appreciate all of the concern and outpouring of support.
We celebrate his extraordinary life and ask you to do the same.
The family requests that you respect their privacy at this time.
Memorial arrangements will be announced in the near future.
--- On Thu, 7/22/10, Fofo <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Fofo <[email protected]>
Subject: [Texascavers] Wes Skiles
To: "texascavers" <[email protected]>
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 8:03 AM
Hello.
Wes Skiles, famous cave diver and explorer, died yesterday during a National
Geographic work dive off West Palm Beach.
I don't have more information now, but this is sad news.
- Fofo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
There was a brief bit about Wes Skiles this morning on NPR, Morning Edition
Here is the link to the story.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2010/07/22/128704761/skiles
If you select the audio option, you can hear Wes speaking.
Leslie Bell
--- On Thu, 7/22/10, Dave H. Crusoe <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Dave H. Crusoe <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] Wes Skiles
To: "Josh Rubinstein" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Frank Binney" <[email protected]>, "Fofo" <[email protected]>, "Texas
Cavers" <[email protected]>
List-Post: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 3:57 PM
The National Geographic tribute:
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/07/national-geographic-photographer-wes-skiles-dies.html
On Jul 22, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Josh Rubinstein wrote:
> Here is some more information.
> http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national-geographic-freelance-photographer-drowns-off-boynton-beach-817521.html
>
> Josh
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Frank Binney <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very sad news indeed. I was just looking at Wes' beautiful photography of
> the Bahama blue holes in the new Nat Geo issue yesterday.
> I served with Wes on a past NSS video salon jury and have a collection of
> his programs--the best underwater cave imagery I've ever seen.
> I'll be looking at his videos tonight and thinking about what an incredible
> contribution he made in his life.
> Frank
>
>
> On 7/22/10 6:03 AM, "Fofo Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > Wes Skiles, famous cave diver and explorer, died yesterday during a
> > National Geographic work dive off West Palm Beach.
> >
> > I don't have more information now, but this is sad news.
> >
> > - Fofo
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
OT BUT EVERYONE WILL ENJOY THIS.
FRITZ
________________________________
From: CR [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:24 PM
To: Bob Germany
Subject: Fw: A day at the beach - this is SUCH an upper!
Take a breather......forget your problems for a few minutes & get ready to smile
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=pkPNa4DBFHI
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If only we could get the cavers' dogs to act like that at TCR!!!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Fritz Holt <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jul 22, 2010 6:29 PM
>To: Off-Topic Texas Cavers <[email protected]>,
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>Subject: [Texascavers] FW: A day at the beach - this is SUCH an upper!
>
>OT BUT EVERYONE WILL ENJOY THIS.
>
>FRITZ
>
>________________________________
>From: CR [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:24 PM
>To: Bob Germany
>Subject: Fw: A day at the beach - this is SUCH an upper!
>
>
>
>
>
>Take a breather......forget your problems for a few minutes & get ready to
>smile
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=pkPNa4DBFHI
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
We took our 1st born down some Big Bend rapids in a kayak at age = -1
month. First cave trip was at about +10 months as I recall. Floyd
Collins Crystal Cave, part of Mammoth Cave, and I have a picture of
the kid peering into Floyd's coffin. He was still in diapers. By age 4
they are big enough to crawl into a tight space where you can't get
them, so you need to lay off certain caves until they get some sense
about falling down tight pits. That could take another 4-40 years ;-)
- Pete
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:32 AM, David McClung wrote:
i got a 5 month old mini caver that will need to go caving for the
first time and wondered if anybody has a suggestion on a good cave to
go to. I will wait till shes maybe a year old or so. or maybe not.
chow, dave mc
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Take her to Airmen's. It'll be easier for her than you. :-)
Mark Minton
At 01:32 PM 7/22/2010, David McClung wrote:
i got a 5 month old mini caver that will need to go caving for the
first time and wondered if anybody has a suggestion on a good cave
to go to. I will wait till shes maybe a year old or so. or maybe not.
chow, dave mc
Please reply to [email protected]
Permanent email address is [email protected]
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Not everyone advocates waiting for a kid to understand caves or to express an
interest in caving before taking the child to a cave. Some second generation
cavers claim to have gone caving with their mothers before they were even born.
They don't remember these early caving trips, of course, but they do remember
hearing later about how their mothers had gone caving while pregnant, and they
sometimes enjoy the bragging rights when cavers swap stories about how young
they were when they started caving.
So what are you waiting for, Dave? You're already late! ;-)
Actually, I think the age of a child's first caving experience is not nearly as
important as how the child feel's about doing it. If she enjoys the initial
experiences and feels that caving is something neat you're letting her do, then
there's a good chance she'll develop further interest in it and will grow up
proud to be a second generation caver, especially if she associates with other
young cavers who reinforce her interest in it as she grows up. On the other
hand, if she grows up feeling that it's something her parents pushed her to do
or that it's an activity associated only with her parents' generation and not
with her generation, then she'll probably learn to avoid caving. That, of
course, is true not just for caving, but for most activities that parents
introduce to their children.
Rod
-----Original Message-----
>From: Stefan Creaser <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jul 22, 2010 2:17 PM
>To: David McClung <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [Texascavers] first cave trip
>
>Surely you'll want her to remember her first caving trip? If so you're
>gonna have to wait until she's about 3.
>
>
>
>Stefan
>
>
>
>From: David McClung [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:32 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [Texascavers] first cave trip
>
>
>
>i got a 5 month old mini caver that will need to go caving for the first
>time and wondered if anybody has a suggestion on a good cave to go to. I
>will wait till shes maybe a year old or so. or maybe not.
>
>
>
>chow, dave mc
>
>
>
>
>--
>IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
>confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
>recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
>contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the
>information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave,
I believe the first cave experience for my two youngest was either
Longhorn or Inner Space.
Both easy walking caves, especially, if you're having to carry a young
un. My shoulder still hurts!
Good luck!
Mark
From: Pete Lindsley [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:23 PM
To: David McClung
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Texascavers] first cave trip
I have a picture of the kid peering into Floyd's coffin. He was still in
diapers.
- Pete
"How he got into diapers, I'll never know!"
Sorry, Pete! I couldn't resist. (With credit given to Groucho Marx).
On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:32 AM, David McClung wrote:
i got a 5 month old mini caver that will need to go caving for the first
time and wondered if anybody has a suggestion on a good cave to go to. I
will wait till shes maybe a year old or so. or maybe not.
chow, dave mc
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Dave,
I recommend Carlsbad Caverns, which was my first cave trip when I was 2
1/2. I agree with Stephan that you need to wait awhile so she might
remember it. And as Pete implied, pictures will help jog her memory. I
have photos of me at the entrance of Carlsbad with a huge bandage
wrapped around my right hand. We had stopped at a roadside zoo in White
City, where the old man who owned the place had let the
chimpanzee/tailless monkey/ape/Cheetah out of the cage and forgotten
about it. My brother and I wandered by, the chimp put my hand in his
mouth and started dragging me off, my brother ran back to my Dad
screaming "A monkey's got Logan", and Dad came to the rescue.
I still have the scar on my wrist, and I think my very first visual
memory is--sadly, not of the cave--but of that chimp ambling toward me.
But that's not nearly as scary as the thought of seeing the corpse of
Floyd Collins wearing diapers.
LowGun
------------------------------------------
Pete Lindsley wrote: We took our 1st born down some Big Bend rapids in a
kayak at age = -1 month. First cave trip was at about +10 months as I
recall. Floyd Collins Crystal Cave, part of Mammoth Cave, and I have a
picture of the kid peering into Floyd's coffin. He was still in diapers.
By age 4 they are big enough to crawl into a tight space where you can't
get them, so you need to lay off certain caves until they get some sense
about falling down tight pits. That could take another 4-40 years ;-)
-----------------------------------------
Stephan Creaser wrote: Surely you�ll want her to remember her first
caving trip? If so you�re gonna have to wait until she�s about 3.
------------------------------------------
David McClung wrote: i got a 5 month old mini caver that will need to go
caving for the first time and wondered if anybody has a suggestion on a
good cave to go to. I will wait till shes maybe a year old or so. or
maybe not.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Has anyone driven from the New Orleans area towards Roanoke, Virginia?
Google has 2 routes. One going thru Chattanooga, Tennessee,
about 13 1/2 hours and the other thru Atlanta which is 14 1/2 hours.
I am leaning towards the longer route thru Atlanta.
I think I am asking what the drive between Atlanta and Charlotte, North
Carolina is like. And how it compares to the drive from Chattanooga
to Blacksburg, Virginia.
Please e-mail me privately.
David Locklear
http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=47912285&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A minute or two or a slowly moving landslide and a lot of frustrated
authoritative types who can't do anything about it.
<http://sorisomail.com/email/42722/ja-viram-desmoronar-uma-montanha.html>http://sorisomail.com/email/42722/ja-viram-desmoronar-uma-montanha.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
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-----
>From: Louise Power <[email protected]>
>Sent: Jul 21, 2010 12:21 PM
>To: Rod Goke <[email protected]>, Texas Cavers <[email protected]>
>Subject: RE: [Texascavers] RE: Almagre -- clues in the shadows
>
>
>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: [email protected]
>> To: [email protected]
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>> >Sent: Jul 20, 2010 9:54 PM
>> >To: Geary Schindel <[email protected]>
>> >Cc: [email protected]
>> >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: [email protected]
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
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 <[email protected]> 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 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-----
> >From: Louise Power <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Jul 21, 2010 12:21 PM
> >To: Rod Goke <[email protected]>, Texas Cavers <
> [email protected]>
> >Subject: RE: [Texascavers] RE: Almagre -- clues in the shadows
> >
> >
> >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: [email protected]
> >> To: [email protected]
> >> 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 <[email protected]>
> >> >Sent: Jul 20, 2010 9:54 PM
> >> >To: Geary Schindel <[email protected]>
> >> >Cc: [email protected]
> >> >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: [email protected]
> >> >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> >>
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit our website: http://texascavers.com
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
--- End Message ---
