I came across this on some forum, that someone suggested it is from an older map of the surrounding Area around Area 51 and Papoose Lake.
It shows an Helicopter which I think must have been in flight as I think I can see its shadow, South East of Papoose Lake.
I also noted that there seemed to be some other object further west that seems to be faded out that may have looked like a Disc type object.
I am not sure what date it was from,It refers to a website showing Wayback maps,
There has been suggestions of some of the maps being from either Mar or Nov 2021.
but some comments are saying not to believe the dates that are suggested.
If I recal, I think there was also a list of other dates to select from.
I am unable to see the map on any of my two browsers on my computer, but I am able to see it on a mobile phone browser.
So I am unable to experiment in trying to see if I can find other related maps from different dates.
I am not sure if they are google maps or from another Source.
Does anyone know of any other websites that may show older maps of the same areas.
I think this is the 1st time that I have ever seen any sort of activity around this area.
Here you can see a Helicoper very close to Papoose lake. You may have to zoom in to see it.
IF its possible maybe some one can post an image of it.
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-115.82632,37.10295,-115.82282,37.10580&localChangesOnly=true
Below is two other links to some past maps of surround areas.
Ones for Groom lake area and another is for the NTS Tonapah area North of Groom Lake..
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-115.83029,37.22400,-115.78352,37.25096&localChangesOnly=true
https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#active=10312&ext=-116.78270,37.80677,-116.77428,37.81071&localChangesOnly=true
Quote from: astr0144 on April 27, 2022, 07:05:58 PM
It shows an Helicopter which I think must have been in flight as I think I can see its shadow, South East of Papoose Lake.
I don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the same helicopter captured in two different photos in two slightly different locations, so the mapping software repeated the helicopter because it couldn't find a reference for it on the second photo.
QuoteI also noted that there seemed to be some other object further west that seems to be faded out that may have looked like a Disc type object.
Coordinates would help. :)
QuoteI am not sure what date it was from,It refers to a website showing Wayback maps,
Doesn't it show the date on the left side of the screen?
QuoteI am unable to see the map on any of my two browsers on my computer, but I am able to see it on a mobile phone browser.
I see the maps without any problems in Opera.
QuoteI am not sure if they are google maps or from another Source.
There are many satellites doing that kind of photography.
QuoteDoes anyone know of any other websites that may show older maps of the same areas.
Google Earth (the application, not the web version) has a timeline that allows you to got back or forth in time and see the photos from those occasions.
QuoteIF its possible maybe some one can post an image of it.
Like this?
(click for full size)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Wayback.jpg) (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Wayback.jpg)
.I am not sure that I would understand why there could be two different photos or images on such a one specific map or why such maps would want or need to show two different references.
my only explantion to my understanding on looking at the map and seeing the image/s would to think I was seeing the helicopter flying and the satellite captured its shadow at the time it photographed it as it passed by.
QuoteI don't think it's a shadow, I think it's the same helicopter captured in two different photos in two slightly different locations, so the mapping software repeated the helicopter because it couldn't find a reference for it on the second photo.
Unfortunately I am not sure when I look at the map how to obtain the specific co-ordinates .
But I had a look on a Bing map of that same area, and I could see something on their map that seems the
same location, but looking at it in more detail, its not what I originally thought. So now I dont think it is a Disc.
I think it was just part of the terrain that seemed rounded.
QuoteCoordinates would help. :)
There are dates that are shown on the map and other dates that you can select.
The persons who posted it on the forum I obtained it from, did not think that those dates being shown were correct. because they also looked at Area 51.. and some of the more recent buildings that are at the base were not shown or built on at the time of the dates that the map/s suggest.
QuoteDoesn't it show the date on the left side of the screen?
Unfortunatley I was unable to install Opera on my Windows XP system.
BUT I was not able to view the map on Firefox or G Chrome...
which unfortunately in the last few months, I am finding I am being unable to see more and more websites
or images anymore... Which maybe because now a lot of things are posted on the Cloud and maybe Windows xP
is unable to view such sites or files.
I was able to view it on Safari on a mobile phone.
QuoteI see the maps without any problems in Opera.
If I recall not long ago you posted something from a WAY BACK image of some sort.
and I was not sure if there are free websites that allow you to find old images or maps that maybe classed as
WAYBACK pages...or something along that line.
However..
On the image that you posted. I can see some information that I think refers to the map that was used that I was not able to see when I looked at the map on a mobile phone. that is shown at the bottom of the image.
but I am not sure if its from a free source or something or a Map software package you have to pay for ?
https://www.esri.com/en-us/home
QuoteThere are many satellites doing that kind of photography.
Google Earth (the application, not the web version) has a timeline that allows you to got back or forth in time and see the photos from those occasions.
Many thanks for posting the image.
I do find it interesting that at last I have found something that appears to show up at Papoose.
It would had been fascinating if it had been an older map that also had shown Bob Lazars suggested S4 Base that showed a Saucer. such as like this.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XLP5JQfBzBY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote
Like this?
Quote from: astr0144 on April 28, 2022, 02:45:01 AM
.I am not sure that I would understand why there could be two different photos or images on such a one specific map or why such maps would want or need to show two different references.
Because images like that are really mosaics made with many photos stitched together by some special software.
If that image was made from two images taken at slightly different times (maybe one second between them), the helicopter would have moved a little, so in the second photo it would appear in a slightly different place.
I dont know enough to know how the maps are created and how many photos/ images it may take for a given area.
BUT I would be very surprised if they could not have just had the one photo for that particular area where the helicopter is shown. where that particular area would be seen a small in comparision to much of the other surrounding areas.
So even just for the Pappose lake area.
How many photos do you think that they maybe likely use.
They could I assume take some photos from high up and even just have one photo for the Papoose lake area
that could have included the Helicopter.
OR do you think they would take a series of closer up photos and piece them together ?
Quote from: ArMaP on April 29, 2022, 12:56:24 AM
Because images like that are really mosaics made with many photos stitched together by some special software.
If that image was made from two images taken at slightly different times (maybe one second between them), the helicopter would have moved a little, so in the second photo it would appear in a slightly different place.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/GroomLake.JPG)
Did you know that there are a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Popeyes, a Taco Bell there?
There's also a Hilton Hotel, a Motel 6, a Holiday Inn too?
;D
Nice find Sgt. 8)
You found something that I was asking about in the past some time ago, that I failed to save details of the webpage or map...and later I did ask if anyone had been aware of such a thing.
when I had come across a map that showed at least one of those things you listed..I think it was the Hotel that I found a ref to and I think it was on what I had thought had been on an official google map at the time. but I was never able to find that same version again for what ever reason.
I questioned could it possibly for real or just a made up version.
There may well be a hotel for certain visitors to the base. and there could be some other facilities, BUT we are led to believe that many of the workers are not supposed to be able to go to certain places.
but there maybe certain areas where they can have access to.
Or your self or someone you came across may have created it. :)
Can I ask do you you have a link for it ? or ask where you obtained it ?
I suppose the helicoptor in the ref image I referred to could have also been created.
The thing is with most maps I have looked at online, around Area 51, most seem to have numerous parts to them
that have been altered, so its hard to know what maybe for real and whats not.
I know John Lear used to claim much of the Area 51 Maps were altered.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on April 29, 2022, 09:17:49 PM
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10011/GroomLake.JPG)
Did you know that there are a McDonalds, a Burger King, a Popeyes, a Taco Bell there?
There's also a Hilton Hotel, a Motel 6, a Holiday Inn too?
;D
I created the image from my Google Earth Pro Map.
I also have the moon leases on the moon mapped out.
(a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away)
;D 8) ;)
Well that was a good creation Sgt. Nice one !
You had me questioning such a thing ! ???
We will have to see if there maybe any other future posts.
Quote from: Sgt.Rocknroll on April 29, 2022, 10:58:37 PM
I created the image from my Google Earth Pro Map.
I also have the moon leases on the moon mapped out.
(a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away)
;D 8) ;)
Quote from: astr0144 on April 29, 2022, 01:24:44 PM
They could I assume take some photos from high up and even just have one photo for the Papoose lake area
that could have included the Helicopter.
OR do you think they would take a series of closer up photos and piece them together ?
If they take photos from high up they will get a bigger area for each photo, but lower resolution.
The higher the resolution the closer they need to be, resulting in smaller areas covered and, as a consequence, more photos needed for a specific area.
Thanks for your thoughts on the two possibilities.
However to be able to see the helicopter in the photo /image or map we refer to.
Would you think it needed to have been done by higher resolution judging by how it appears to us when we look
at it ?
and as the Helicopter itself is very small in comparision to even a relatively small area of Papoose lake or part of its surroundings.
I myself would doubt very much that the resoltions we see would have to include s series numerous small
areas to make the Helicopter appear to be seen as two seperate images as you initially suggested rather than
the photo showing a shadow on a larger scale photo image..
I suspect that the size of the helicopter would be unlikely any more than 20 to 70 foot square area on average.
although I believe that there are some types of helicopters that maybe as long as 120 foot or more.
This link and image shows some egs of various helicopter sizes.
https://external-preview.redd.it/D4Ul57pcYZL1-lkVWnNxJsvj2myFLgBSvj-Pg_piZz8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ee1bd383ff9a856ec47a18311c7417e3a8d5528e
(https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.6431aabbf64bdf26c326984b901a87f1?rik=1eH3AmMnfD06kw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.dmitryshulgin.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f04%2fCaracal-9.jpg&ehk=rN4ReUdEuV9yZ1%2bj6CL%2fU3FQ3P6QcHiC%2fzwRYC738TY%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/D4Ul57pcYZL1-lkVWnNxJsvj2myFLgBSvj-Pg_piZz8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ee1bd383ff9a856ec47a18311c7417e3a8d5528e)
so I would very much doubt that they would be taking numerous photos of say 50 ft square areas and piecing all them together.
I am also not sure if they have certain photography film / cameras that could show much more detail from further away images... that could just require one or just a few photos and still allow you to see the helicopter in the same
same detail that we can see it as long as we zoom into the image.
Different films used in at least the older style cameras before digital, used to show different grain structures.
I am not how the more modern digital options may vary !
Quote from: ArMaP on April 30, 2022, 01:01:53 AM
If they take photos from high up they will get a bigger area for each photo, but lower resolution.
The higher the resolution the closer they need to be, resulting in smaller areas covered and, as a consequence, more photos needed for a specific area.
Quote from: astr0144 on April 30, 2022, 06:19:47 AM
I myself would doubt very much that the resoltions we see would have to include s series numerous small
areas to make the Helicopter appear to be seen as two seperate images as you initially suggested rather than
the photo showing a shadow on a larger scale photo image..
Now that I have more time I can explain it better. :)
To make those images (or any other mosaic), we need to several photos that have overlapping areas, something like this:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Image9.gif)
Depending on the software used (you can do it by hand, but it's a very hard work) and the content of the photos (images with lots of detail are easier to aligned than images of, for example, the ocean) they may need an overlapping of some 20% or more to be able to "stitch" the photos together.
What I think may have happened was that the helicopter was close to the right edge of one photo and so appeared near the left edge of the next, like if it was, for example, on that part that is covered by both the red and yellow squares on the image above.
After a quick search I found that, apparently, the highest resolution photos are close to 60 cm (2 ft) per pixel and cover a 20 km area of the ground.
QuoteI am also not sure if they have certain photography film / cameras that could show much more detail from further away images... that could just require one or just a few photos and still allow you to see the helicopter in the same
same detail that we can see it as long as we zoom into the image.
For that they would need a bigger camera. The satellites that take those 60 cm per pixel photos have a 650 mm diameter telescope, so to have the same resolution at a higher altitude they would need an even bigger telescope and put it in orbit.
QuoteDifferent films used in at least the older style cameras before digital, used to show different grain structures.
I am not how the more modern digital options may vary !
It's not that different.
The more sensitive sensors can capture more detail with less light, while the less sensitive sensors need a longer exposure time to achieve the same result, but they will have more noise from the increased exposure time.
I forgot to say one reason that makes me think that is not a shadow: the colour.
A shadow shouldn't be as dark (or almost as dark) as the object itself, specially on a bright surface.
Interesting to read what you have described along with your image eg ArMaP.
If you are right, that surprises me.
I am suspecting what you shown, was the older methods that they used to use.
and I am aware of certain technology to do with photos now has special software to piece a series of images together , like with a series of photos to be joined up as a panoramic.
I assume that the image that shows the Helicopter at Papoose Lake, is not highest resolution photos.
but if they were you are suggesting that each small photo would only be maybe 2 FT per pixal.
so is that the say for eg that an area of an size of a helicopter if it was say 70 ft long x 70 Ft wide
(or is that 70 Sq feet) could have 35 x 35 photos 35 x 2 ft wide and another 35 x 2ft long.
or something along that line.
So could it be to question maybe how many pixels we may be seeing on the image.
BUT I would think along the lines of maybe... that say a 70 Ft Square area for a helecopter could be over 35 times larger than that of the equivalent of a 2 Ft per pixel resolution.
so we would still see the helicopter on much lesser resolutions. and would that also be larger sized pixels.
BUT that may eliminate any shadows or not, I am not sure.
Also the Helicopter be stationary and still show the shadow. in that eg I think the sun would need to had been quite low to the horizon, were it cast longer shadows. BUT as I mentioned its unlikely to have been in the right direction to have cast the shadow in the position that we see.
QuoteDepending on the software used (you can do it by hand, but it's a very hard work) and the content of the photos (images with lots of detail are easier to aligned than images of, for example, the ocean) they may need an overlapping of some 20% or more to be able to "stitch" the photos together.
What I think may have happened was that the helicopter was close to the right edge of one photo and so appeared near the left edge of the next, like if it was, for example, on that part that is covered by both the red and yellow squares on the image above.
After a quick search I found that, apparently, the highest resolution photos are close to 60 cm (2 ft) per pixel and cover a 20 km area of the ground.
I am /or was not aware of the details of what such a Satellites camera's details may involve or what size they maybe or how they operate.and to what specifications.
but if your description maybe such an example, thats worth noting.
QuoteFor that they would need a bigger camera. The satellites that take those 60 cm per pixel photos have a 650 mm diameter telescope, so to have the same resolution at a higher altitude they would need an even bigger telescope and put it in orbit.
It's not that different.
The more sensitive sensors can capture more detail with less light, while the less sensitive sensors need a longer exposure time to achieve the same result, but they will have more noise from the increased exposure time.
Looking again at the image of the helicopter and its possible shadow. to me the Helicopter does look quite black.
and what maybe the shadow seems more lighter or greyer. The ground or surface does look relatively light or bright, assuming that the sun is shining on a lightish color type rock surface..
THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER.
Is to look at the images shadow (if it is one) and where it appears.
The location where the image is taken is to the South East of Papoose lake.
Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West. Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ? Which would be possible in the Northern hemsphere.
and as far as I recall when at At Area 51, generally the Sun would anywhere from rising in the East to then travel South to set in the west. but would depend also on the time of the year.
There is suggested dates shown for the images, and it suggests it was taken in Feb 2022. so in winter.
I think generally in the Winter the rises later and less towards from the east.
So maybe the shadow does not make sense and your theory could suggest you could be right.
Unless you analyse it differently to me.
IF the image of the helicopter is genuine and not been inserted to be created as a hoax,
IT could be one of the suggested Black helicopters that people often refer to that they report that they see around Area 51.
Quote from: ArMaP on April 30, 2022, 05:51:37 PM
I forgot to say one reason that makes me think that is not a shadow: the colour.
A shadow shouldn't be as dark (or almost as dark) as the object itself, specially on a bright surface.
Quote from: astr0144 on April 30, 2022, 11:25:20 PM
I am suspecting what you shown, was the older methods that they used to use.
and I am aware of certain technology to do with photos now has special software to piece a series of images together , like with a series of photos to be joined up as a panoramic.
Not the older method (that would be doing thing by hand) I was talking about the software used to make image mosaics, panoramas being one example of those.
QuoteI assume that the image that shows the Helicopter at Papoose Lake, is not highest resolution photos.
but if they were you are suggesting that each small photo would only be maybe 2 FT per pixal.
so is that the say for eg that an area of an size of a helicopter if it was say 70 ft long x 70 Ft wide
(or is that 70 Sq feet) could have 35 x 35 photos 35 x 2 ft wide and another 35 x 2ft long.
or something along that line.
2 ft per pixel is correct, but the photos are many pixels wide and usually even more pixels long (see the note at the bottom of this post).
In the case I was talking about, the photos cover an area of 20 km, which, at 0.6 metres per pixel means more than 30,000 pixels wide, so no, certainly not 35 photos to capture a 70 ft object.
35 pixels to capture a 70 ft object, yes.
On a 20 km wide photo a 20 metres object would represent 1/1000 of the total photo width.
QuoteBUT I would think along the lines of maybe... that say a 70 Ft Square area for a helecopter could be over 35 times larger than that of the equivalent of a 2 Ft per pixel resolution.
so we would still see the helicopter on much lesser resolutions. and would that also be larger sized pixels.
I was talking about the satellite I found with the highest resolution, I don't know the resolution of the camera that took the photos used to create that image.
QuoteBUT that may eliminate any shadows or not, I am not sure.
If we see the object we see it's shadow, as they are the same size (in fact, the shadow is always a little bigger, but wouldn't make a difference at this distance).
QuoteLooking again at the image of the helicopter and its possible shadow. to me the Helicopter does look quite black.
and what maybe the shadow seems more lighter or greyer. The ground or surface does look relatively light or bright, assuming that the sun is shining on a lightish color type rock surface..
Looking closer I agree, the possible shadow does look slightly lighter, and we can also see the vegetation, so it could really be a the shadow.
QuoteTHE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER.
Is to look at the images shadow (if it is one) and where it appears.
The location where the image is taken is to the South East of Papoose lake.
Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West. Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ? Which would be possible in the Northern hemsphere.
and as far as I recall when at At Area 51, generally the Sun would anywhere from rising in the East to then travel South to set in the west. but would depend also on the time of the year.
Isn't the shadow southeast regarding the helicopter? That would put the Sun at northwest (more west-northwest, in fact).
QuoteThere is suggested dates shown for the images, and it suggests it was taken in Feb 2022. so in winter.
I think generally in the Winter the rises later and less towards from the east.
In Winter the Sun rises and sets more to the south and in the Summer more to the north.
QuoteSo maybe the shadow does not make sense and your theory could suggest you could be right.
Unless you analyse it differently to me.
Using this site (https://www.suncalc.org/#/37.1078,-115.7959,6/2022.02.24/14:32/1/3) we can see that on 2022-02-24 the Sun set close to a west-southwest position, so it was not possible for it to cast an east-southeast shadow.
QuoteIF the image of the helicopter is genuine and not been inserted to be created as a hoax,
IT could be one of the suggested Black helicopters that people often refer to that they report that they see around Area 51.
Why would anyone create a fake shadow?
Note: many satellites, instead of using a rectangular sensor for their cameras, use only a one line sensor, and they work as a scanner, capturing one line at a time while moving across the area they are photographing, so their photos usually have much more pixels in length than in width. The fact that most satellites have orbits that are further away from Earth over the poles than over the equator also changes the resolution, so the higher resolution photos are only possible closer to the equator, the closer to the poles they get the lower the resolution.
Sorry ArMaP, I may have misunderstood some thing or was not fully clear or a bit stressed over something making some of my replies, as I found I think I made a few errors.
Was you image showing the hand version or how the software overlaps or pieces the various photo images together.
when I said this phrase, I was thinking your image may had been representing the old hand method, but I now
think you were showing how the software worked.
QuoteI am suspecting what you shown, was the older methods that they used to use.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/Image9.gif)
Quote
Not the older method (that would be doing thing by hand) I was talking about the software used to make image mosaics, panoramas being one example of those.
Interesting Maths analysis.
I am NOT sure how you determone and specific area size, or know that the covered area was 20 KM as I think on the original image you were able to alter the scale, such as zoom in or out of the map, unless you used the original setting and was abe to see some sort of scale or was just aware of it, or managed to check it online some how
or make an estimate of the scale as online maps do show some sort of scale, even if its say a per KM or say 10 KM line...that you can then make an estimation of the rest of the maps size.
I will have to think further about how you came up with your numbers / eg.
The trouble with me is I dont like using meters or KMs, I am old school and prefer to use feet and miles.
but I think I have an idea of what you are describing. but may need to recheck a few things to clarify it in my
mind.
Quote2 ft per pixel is correct, but the photos are many pixels wide and usually even more pixels long (see the note at the bottom of this post).
In the case I was talking about, the photos cover an area of 20 km, which, at 0.6 metres per pixel means more than 30,000 pixels wide, so no, certainly not 35 photos to capture a 70 ft object.
35 pixels to capture a 70 ft object, yes.
On a 20 km wide photo a 20 metres object would represent 1/1000 of the total photo width.
I was thinking as if or that say we were say showing an eg, as if it was or had been using the a Satelitte that may had been using a high resolution camera of 2 FT per pixel.
But also what I may had been suggesting was that to be able to see the Helicopter like we can, is that it could still
have been shown using much lower resolution cameras where each pixel could be much larger area. so for eg.
each pixel may show an area of say 10FT or even upto say 70 foot per pixel. or somewhere between 10 to 70 ft.
Could that be possible and still allow us to see the helicopter as we do on the map image. ?
QuoteI was talking about the satellite I found with the highest resolution, I don't know the resolution of the camera that took the photos used to create that image.
The shadow size also may vary depending if the helicopter is on the ground or in flight and would depend on what height above the ground. also the position of the Sun....as longer shadows get cast as the sun goes down lower to the horizon.
QuoteIf we see the object we see it's shadow, as they are the same size (in fact, the shadow is always a little bigger, but wouldn't make a difference at this distance).
Interesting to note your further consideration.
QuoteLooking closer I agree, the possible shadow does look slightly lighter, and we can also see the vegetation, so it could really be a the shadow.
NO...Not in my opinion...In the Image you posted of the helicopter, the top of that photo.. is pointing EAST...
which some may have thought could have been North...(which may often be the case when how we may consider a photo.... where we think of it being laid out like a compass..if we go clock wise.. N.E.S.W )
The Shadow, is shown slightly below the helicopters image. which is more to the west of the helicopter.
ie opposite the way that the image may appear to had been pointing.
BUT it is also slightly south of it, so the helicopters shadow is South WEST in my opinion.
That also in my opinion should had suggested that the sun would have had to have been coming from the opposite of South west, which would had put it in a NORTH EAST Location.... AND THAT AS FAR AS I AM AWARE IS NOT POSSIBLE. as the Sun in the Northern hemisphere never positions from the North.
SO that does still make me question that photo ... UNLESS SOMEHOW its showing an inversed image somehow.
like if we look through certain telescopes you can see the images upside down...
JUST TO RECTIFY SOMETHING THAT I SAID, that was Incorrect...I should have said..NOT ! see in bold.
when I had referred to :
THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER
"Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West.
Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ?
Which would
"NOT" be possible in the Northern hemsphere"
Quote
Yet the shadow seems to be towards the South West. Would that suggest maybe that the Sun would have had to have been positioned towards the North East ? Which would be possible in the Northern hemsphere.
]
QuoteIsn't the shadow southeast regarding the helicopter? That would put the Sun at northwest (more west-northwest, in fact)
I am not sure exactly where the sun tends to rise in winter in the north hemisphere , but we are usually led to believe that the sun tends to rise in the EAST... but it probably goes more towards inbetween the EAST and South in MID Winter say around December / January... BUT come end of Febuary we are getting towards spring.
QuoteIn Winter the Sun rises and sets more to the south and in the Summer more to the north.
I will have to try to look at this later if need be... BUT it may there fore ref to what I suggest...
That the hadow we see is South West of the Helicoper and NOT south East of it.
QuoteUsing this site we can see that on 2022-02-24 the Sun set close to a west-southwest position, so it was not possible for it to cast an east-southeast shadow.
IF they were trying to do a clever Hoax they may try to create a fake shadow on the image.
QuoteWhy would anyone create a fake shadow?
So at the moment I still am a bit unsure on the image of the Helicopter image being shown on the map photo that we see. as the Shadow to me does not make full sense that I would agree with..
Interesting to note what you descibe.
I think I recall see a TV progam where an NASA astronaut Gordon Cooper was using using a special camera up in space where he was trying to photograph certain areas of say the Carribean Sea / Bahama's and Islands where he believed that there was many ship wrecks that contained a LOT sunken treasures worth a fortune... in which he created some special maps and did intend to later attempt to search for the wrecks as he was also a diver.
In the end he had become friends with a treasure hunter and his son and ended up after he died having the maps
past on the treasure hunter who later had too old to act on it and later passed it onto his son... who later on did attempt to find the wrecks...
He did a TV program series on it called "Coppers treasure" which was very interesting.
They did find some wrecks one they believed could had been one of Christopher Columbus's sunken ships.
but unfortunatly the TV series ended just after they had found some treasure and it never told the viewers what the outcome was, as at the time, the son who was searching was running out of funds to be able to continue to
search and it had cost a lot of money for them to try to search for it.
QuoteCooper's Treasure
In a 1963 mission, Gordon Cooper was sent on a 122 hour flight around the world, detecting nuclear sites. He photographed numerous locations, and discovered more than 100 anomalies around the South Caribbean area, which appeared as dark patches, and were said to be sunken ships. Throughout his lifetime, he secretly worked with the Miklos family on many of these ships, uncovering treasure that is rumored to be worth billions of dollars. Before he passed away, he then gave his research and documents to Darrell Miklos.
Darrell Miklos was born into a family of shipwreck explorers and treasure hunters, who have been active in expeditions since the 1970s. His father Roger Miklos was a police officer, who relocated to Florida after he met another treasure hunter named Kip Wagner, and was offered a job with Wagner searching shipwrecks and treasure locations. They salvaged numerous shipwrecks, and along the way met Gordon Cooper, an engineer, test pilot and Air Force pilot, actually one of the youngest of the seven original astronauts in Project Mercury, the first US manned space program. He piloted the longest and final Mercury flight, a 34-hour mission so becoming the first American to sleep in space. He was also the last American to be launched alone in an entirely solo orbital mission, and was later the command pilot of Gemini 5. His contributions to NASA are significant and he is considered one of the pioneers of space technology. Cooper and Miklos worked together on numerous treasure-hunting projects, continuing to do so for several decades. Cooper was a firm believer in aliens and unidentified flying objects, having experiences with unusual aircraft when he was younger. He debated that the US government was withholding information about UFOs.
Path to Treasure Hunting
His father's friendship with Cooper lead them to be hired by NASA during the Apollo Program. Darrell and his father would comb the sea, recovering booster rockets used for flights. Over the next two decades, he became involved in work with NASA, while also excavating shipwrecks near the coast of Florida. He also became friends with Cooper, and the two would work together for many years. He became a certified diver, and was later invited to join the American Academy of Underwater Scientists. He eventually opened his own company in 2014, called Gemini Marine Exploration. Darrell now uses his experience to offer shipwreck recovery services with his company. Before Cooper passed away, he gave information to Miklos which would become a catalyst for his next treasure adventures. He then had an idea of creating a television show which became "Cooper's Treasure"
https://affairpost.com/darrell-miklos-from-coopers-treasure-wiki-father-roger-miklos-treasure-age-family-net-worth-wife/
I found this article also , but I was not aware of this suggestion that they claimed to find a possible ET spacecraft.
that new info to me, whether they have or may show it on TV or not, I await to see.
ET MYSTERY Treasure hunter claims he's found an ALIEN spaceship while exploring ancient shipwrecks under the Bermuda Triangle
Intrepid shipwreck explorer Darrell Miklos stumbled across the huge structure in the Bahamas using maps designed by an ex-NASA astronaut
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6975073/treasure-hunder-darrell-miklos-ufo-bermuda-triangle/
QuoteNote: many satellites, instead of using a rectangular sensor for their cameras, use only a one line sensor, and they work as a scanner, capturing one line at a time while moving across the area they are photographing, so their photos usually have much more pixels in length than in width. The fact that most satellites have orbits that are further away from Earth over the poles than over the equator also changes the resolution, so the higher resolution photos are only possible closer to the equator, the closer to the poles they get the lower the resolution.
Quote from: astr0144 on May 01, 2022, 06:17:27 PM
Was you image showing the hand version or how the software overlaps or pieces the various photo images together.
Both, the software works the same way as the manual way: it finds similar features in both images, does that for several locations and then aligns the two photos by those common features, with some resizing/skewing/rotating/whatever if necessary. Then it applies the same method for the next image.
QuoteI am sure how you determone and specific area size, or know that the covered area was 20 KM as I think on the original image you were able to alter the scale, such as zoom in or out of the map, unless you used the original setting and was abe to see some sort of scale or was just aware of it, or managed to check it online some how
or make an estimate of the scale as online maps do show some sort of scale, even if its say a per KM or say 10 KM line...that you can then make an estimation of the rest of the maps size.
I was talking about that specific satellite I found on my search, the one that has the highest resolution I could find, 60 cm (2 ft). I don't have the slightest idea of which satellite (or even if it really was a satellite, some photos we assume we taken by a satellite are in fact taken by high altitude aeroplanes) took the photos used on that site.
QuoteBut also what I may had been suggesting was that to be able to see the Helicopter like we can, is that it could still
have been shown using much lower resolution cameras where each pixel could be much larger area. so for eg.
each pixel may show an area of say 10FT or even upto say 70 foot per pixel. or somewhere between 10 to 70 ft.
Could that be possible and still allow us to see the helicopter as we do on the map image. ?
A, for example, 2 ft per pixel resolution means any object that is 2 ft or more appears on the image. Anything smaller than that will only change the colour of one pixel (if the object is not of a colour similar to that of the ground).
So, if the helicopter's tail is 2 ft wide, it will appear on a 2 ft per pixel image as one pixel wide. On a 1 ft per pixel it will appear as 2 pixels wide. On a 5 ft per pixel image it would not be visible, as it would represent only 40% of a pixel's width.
QuoteThe shadow size also may vary depending if the helicopter is on the ground or in flight and would depend on what height above the ground. also the position of the Sun....as longer shadows get cast as the sun goes down lower to the horizon.
True, but the "shadow" doesn't appear to be distorted by perspective, so if it's a shadow it was projected from a direction close to that from the camera to the helicopter.
QuoteNO...Not in my opinion...In the Image you posted of the helicopter, the top of that photo.. is pointing EAST...
which some may have thought could have been North...(which may often be the case when how we may consider a photo.... where we think of it being laid out like a compass..if we go clock wise.. N.E.S.W )
Why do you say that? The image is pointing in the same direction on Google Maps (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Papoose+Lake/@37.1043084,-115.8244814,451m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80b806189d73c583:0x23f9fc33172bf1e5!8m2!3d37.1023384!4d-115.8492189) or Bing Maps (https://www.bing.com/maps?osid=4dadee0c-c485-4ec1-9cb1-fdd939c359a4&cp=37.103305~-115.821734&lvl=17&style=h&v=2&sV=2&form=S00027), with North at the top, West to the left, South at the bottom and East to the right.
Apologies ArMaP, my mistake ! ,
My earlier description was down to my wrong thinking or imagination..
and I am unable to see the original webpage on my computer which I mentioned before.. and I only see it on a
mobile phone.
I have now looked again on just a normal bing map to find that same area where the helicopter seems to have been shown.
When I look again and I look at what seems like a trail ... that is just below the image of the helicopter.
Above that trail or above the helicopter is showing more towards the North as you say.
(Although it is pointing slightly North East depending what part of the trial as it slightly varies depending what part and how one looks at it.) The trail seems as if its coming from a higher left side to a lower right side of when we see it on the map.
and although the Helicopter is on the Right hand side or East side of Papoose lake.. I can see that the trail and where the helicopter had been located... would have been showing facing more towards North than East.
So the Shadow is to the Lower right or the Helicopter and that I think does suggest its south east of it as you suggested.
which would maybe mean if the sun was say setting more towards the North west, then what we see appears to be correct. that the shadow could show up as being South East.
For some reason I had though that that trial and Helicopter had been facing more towards the East.
probably because it was on the East side of Papoose Lake.
so it was my mistake.
QuoteWhy do you say that? The image is pointing in the same direction on Google Maps or Bing Maps, with North at the top, West to the left, South at the bottom and East to the right.