Could 1m Ikonos Satellite Detect Mystery Creatures?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by common_sense_seeker, Oct 2, 2009.

  1. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Why isn't satellite technology being used in cryptozoology to hunt for suspected large unknown things that fly in the night? (e.g the Ropen of Papua New Guinea). These 1m satellite images of a super tanker and harbour show the level of 1m definition that would be able to detect the reported 2m-6m wingspans of sightings and their moonlit shadows MV Sirius Star, off the coast of Somalia, IKONOS 1m Panchromatic. It's relatively accessible too, only a few hundreds of dollars(+) to cover 1kmsq. Specify your coordinates and time, then pay by credit card.

    If I had the resources myself, I would pay to have 1m resolution satellite photgraphs taken of the lake craters of Umboi island on full moon nights http://www.landinfo.com/satprices.htm. If two photos are taken 3 seconds apart (for example), then the ropen or its shadow should be identifiable. It would prove that there is something big that flies at night! It would be the only way to capture these elusive creatures on film in my opinion.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    because these satellites are busy using their hi-tech equipment and precious orbiting time in space on photographing naked girls without bikinis as well as mosquitoes and flies all around Earth.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    lol
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Because it is nonsense. And luckily nobody is going to pay that kind of TAXPAYER money for this kind of nonsense.
     
  8. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I can just imagine the discussion in the high tech control room, packed with military personnel with the controls to all of (for instance) America's aerospace technology at their fingertips :

    Person A : "Gentlemen, it might have cost $30 billion dollars and taken 5 years to construct but the satellite network is complete. Given 5 minutes notice we can observe any place on Earth with such precision we can tell whether a person is wearing glasses or not from 300km above. What shall we do with it?"

    Person B : "Well intel from Afghanistan says there's a major Taliban weapons shipment on route to Kabul. Also North Korea are moving several components to their ballistic missile construction complex. Plus now that Iran has admitted their other nuclear facility they are moving a lot of equipment to it which we need to keep a close eye on."

    Person C : "Screw that, I say we train all the satellites on the uninhabited forests of Papua New Guinea in order to get proof of a huge winged animal never observed by anyone other than native tribes. Surely nuclear proliferation issues can wait a while?"

    Yeah, that sounds like a conversation which would come up all the time CSS. Why is it you call yourself 'common sense seeker' when you suggest the least sensible things?
     
  9. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Obviously he is still seeking.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    he is looking.
     
  11. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Funny thing is, there's a company that invites people to use their 1m satellite technology to scan the land as they wish. What AN is on about, I have no idea. I suspect that he is so 'self-assured', that he is too impatient to fully read the posts of others whom he has disagreements with.
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    On the other hand -
    They're offering photos already taken, not current observations.
    So it's more a question of going through stuff already available.
     
  13. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    They also take specific requests. I'll email them for a quote.
     
  14. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Yeah, an object with a wingspan of 6m is going to get you six pixels if you are lucky. Value for money eh?

    Say what? You think you are going to be able to find six pixels amongst the noise from an image taken at night?

    Are there any known birds with large wingspans that might fly at night (nocturnal migrations etc), or would six pixels actually prove the existence of this creature, hmm? Fruitbats have a wingspan of up to 2m, and fly at night, and it's not beyond reason someone getting swooped on by a 2m bat might just get scared and exaggerate the size of the creature, hence any lore pertaining to it might be tainted somewhat. Then you'd be looking at maybe 2 pixels.

    Good luck telling two pixels of noise from two pixels of data.
     
  15. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
  16. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Did you mention cryptozoology? I wonder if they'll even bother to reply if you did.

    Finding 2 to 6 pixels amongst the noise? What chances of success do you think you really have. You aren't going to get much of a shape, are you? You going to look at it by eye?

    What fuels that pipe dream? How many sources of publicly available satellite imagery are there? What plans are there to launch higher res instruments? Don't you think higher res will demand a higher price? We aren't talking about mass consumer markets here, but a speciality field.

    You really are dreaming if you think hi-res images are going to be cheap any time soon.
     
  17. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    OK, here's an IKONOS image of a beach resort in Egypt. Let's see if you can spot somebody laying on the beach.

    http://www.satimagingcorp.com/galleryimages/ikonos-ismailia-egypt.jpg

    People are about six foot tall, and about as wide as a wing. So it's a fair comparison.

    Go on, eyeball this image and tell me if you can see anyone laying on the beach.
     
  18. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    It's not a fair comparison at all. A plan view of the cryptid has an eye-witness wingspan of around 6 meters or more. The plan of someones head and shoulders is about 0.5 meters. You're a factor of 12 out.
     
  19. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    You said 2m to 6m. I countered the 6m claim, saying a fruitbat would scare you if it swooped, and it would be easy to over report the size when scared. Also 6m is nearly double the wingspan of the largest known bird. So clearly spurious. Also, that an albatross with long slender wings, it wouldn't show up unless it was a bright day and against a dark background. We would require incredibly high contrast.

    Humans are about six foot tall. That's nearly 2m not 0.5. If you can't spot one in plain daylight on a beach, what hope do you have doing what you propose IN THE DARK when there is LOW CONTRAST.

    Also, as wings flap up and down, you'd have to catch them flat to get the potential full 6 pixels, but a 2m specimen flapping, in the dark, ... 1 or two pixels? Good luck.

    Face it, you've come up with a half baked idea, simply because you did not even consider the facts or practicalities.

    Now, show me those beach bodies, or admit defeat.
     
  20. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    The size reported is similar to that of a small tree which, with it's shadow, can easily be identified. Just because you disbelieve the reported sizes of flying crypids from around the world, does mean that they all have to be mistaken fruit bats! You are talking about a subject that you are not interested in and therefore have no researched knowledge of, unlike myself. The contrast against the reflected light of a bright full moon being good enough is questionable, but not beyond reason.
     
  21. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    OK, but please be man enough to let us know once you've failed. You don't seem to grasp the mechanics of this at all. Looking for six pixels maximum in a low contrast picture. Get that? Six pixels if the creature is 6m, wings outstretched, good contrast, lining up on a pixel boundary, and either horizontal or perpendicular. Otherwise you are going to get an anti-aliased effect at the wing tip and lose a pixel either end, and then have a few disjointed adjacent anti-aliased obliques to find. You really have no clue have you?

    You still haven't pointed out any humans laying on that beach yet. I presume that's 'cos you can't see any IN BROAD DAYLIGHT.
     
  22. common_sense_seeker Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,623
    Congratulations, you're more cuckoo that I am.
     
  23. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You admit that you are 'cuckoo'? So, are you just trolling?
     

Share This Page