# satellite



## blowslow23 (Jun 30, 2009)

does anyone have any pics of mj from satellite photos?


----------



## SherwoodForest (Jun 30, 2009)

That sounds cool, unless it's my plants.


----------



## 420benny (Jun 30, 2009)

:yeahthat: That would truly suck to be taken down by a spy pic.


----------



## hanfhead (Jun 30, 2009)

There are several sites with people dedicated to searching google earth for things even as silly as pixelated nude sunbathers.  I would think someone has found a field somewhere.  I would like to see if there are.


edit:

Lots of hits (not bong hits)

hXXp://arstechnica.com/software/news/2009/01/google-earth-reveals-two-acre-field-of-weed-to-swiss-police.ars[/url]


----------



## zipflip (Jul 1, 2009)

> pixelated nude sunbathers



???????


----------



## 420benny (Jul 1, 2009)

Makes you wonder,huh?


----------



## zipflip (Jul 1, 2009)

yeah... lol   ....wonder wat a pixelated nude sun bather is  lol..


----------



## hanfhead (Jul 1, 2009)

www.googlesightseeing.com has some cool stuff like animal herds and yes, even the sunbathers.

But here is an alleged field of weed from satellite.
www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2009/01/marijuana_field_found.html


----------



## zipflip (Jul 1, 2009)

> But here is an alleged field of weed from satellite.
> .gearthblog.com/blog/archi...eld_found.html[/url]


 i doubt most us on here gotta worry much bout this as we dont got a whole field growin all uniform like out in middle of no where. but still kinda spooky they do taht tho


----------



## blowslow23 (Jul 1, 2009)

damn it says that url cant be found zip?


----------



## zipflip (Jul 1, 2009)

idk, it worked for me.
 oh wait ya gotta click the link in the original post from hanfhead . i noticed it didnt work when i cliked the quoteed link in my post either.
  hope that works for ya.


----------



## hanfhead (Jul 1, 2009)

zipflip said:
			
		

> idk, it worked for me.
> oh wait ya gotta click the link in the original post from hanfhead . i noticed it didnt work when i cliked the quoteed link in my post either.
> hope that works for ya.



Yea, the quoted link isn't working for some reason.  Also, someone posted this link in the comments to the direct google map image. http://twurl.nl/n4jhig


----------



## blowslow23 (Jul 1, 2009)

yea i figured that out after i looked at the page again haha but thanks zip


----------



## Lemmongrass (Jul 1, 2009)

hey, did the plant in your avy have a mutation that caused several leaves on one stem to get a half albino middle finger?


----------



## Hick (Jul 1, 2009)

Well... googleearth is not "real time" ... "live". The sat' pictures are dated. most are several years old..
BUT.. if GE id both "free" and readily available to the public, what do you suppose the government has at their disposal??
I have little doubt, they could count the hairs on your head from space, if they so desire.


----------



## HippyInEngland (Jul 1, 2009)

Not everyones  

eace:


----------



## GMT (Jul 1, 2009)

:hubba:


----------



## godspeedsuckah (Jul 1, 2009)

Rotfl Gmt


----------



## Lemmongrass (Jul 1, 2009)

the govt has real time capability, but not at their every whim. it can and has been used in conjunction with police forces(an on the books violation of law).

There are limitations imposted by physics aswell as timing. hxtp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_imagery

Also as far as seeing you hairs, that is impossible. due to thew nature of high res australites they are placed too far away from earth in order to be geosynchronous that we cant see that fine, even if you are big brother.

Found this for ya guys:

Every time I hear someone talking about imaging (spy) satellites, somebody invariably brings up those top secret high speed government spy satellites that can read the license plate on your car or the headlines of the newspaper you're reading. As far as I can tell, such claims have little basis in reality. While almost all data on satellites such as the advanced KH-12 flown by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) of the United States is classified, it's not all that hard to figure out what they should be capable of.

All an imaging satellite is, really, is a large, space based optical telescope/camera, not unlike the Hubble Space Telescope. The resolving power of any telescope can be calculated by the following formula:

&#952; = 115.8/D

where &#952; is angular resolution of the objective, expressed in seconds of arc, and D is the diameter of the objective in millimeters. This is commonly referred to as the Dawes limit of the objective, and is quite a good estimate of the theoretical resolution the objective is capable of. The Hubble telescope has an objective of 2.4 meters and this is probably pretty close to the maximum diameter that can be launched into space with currently available launch vehicles, so the NRO satellites can't be much bigger than this. The Dawes limit of a 2.4 meter objective works out to around .05 seconds of arc.

To figure out actual size of an object from its angular size at a given distance use the formula:

angular size(in degrees) = 57.3*actual size / distance

For a distance of about 650 kilometers, which is likely a typical operating altitude for imaging satellites, this works out to right around 10 centimeters. Unless the birds are equipped with larger, multi-segment mirrors or some other unknown capability, that is about the theoretical limit of their resolution. This does not necessarily mean that 10 centimeters is the smallest oject these cameras can distinguish, but that this is the minimum distance that must separate two objects for the satellite to tell them apart. So while they might be able to spot a golf ball on a putting green under exceptional circumstances, there is no way they could read a license plate.

Then there is the atmosphere. Long the bane of astronomers, the atmosphere also limits the performance of any telescope looking through it. Atmospheric turbulence (what astronomers refer to as 'seeing') commonly reduces the actual performance of astronomical objectives to around .5 seconds of arc, although i'm not sure this is as critical for taking pictures of terrestrial objects as it is for astronomical ones.

Now, if none of this is enough to convince you, consider this one undeniable fact: license plates are not usually mounted on the tops of cars.

-----------------

First I want to say how much I enjoyed the above write up - so much so that I quickly voted it up, then fixed my hair a little bit, then sent it (in email form) to a satellite engineer I happen to know at a big scary satellite television company (ok, he's my dad).

He sent the following:

Sounds right- BUT
The author "assumes" a 650 Km orbit. Given that the resolution of the object is inversely proportional to the distance, a decrease in orbit to 320 Km increases the resolution to 5 cm. Still not enough to read the license number, but closer.

If an "agency" REALLY wanted to see detail, there is nothing to stop them (except fuel consumption) from dropping an orbit to the 200 Km range for a few orbits.

Also consider other orbits. An elliptical orbit with a 200 mile perigee and 500, 600,1000 mile apogee would provide a quick peek. If you had many of these devices orbiting at the same time, you could cover a LOT of territory "most" of the time.

With all that said, it would still be easier to call somebody and have them go outside and look at the license plate. In all the closed, restricted societies I've ever heard of the greatest danger always came from the people willing to sell information than from all the technology. The technology is best for checking up on what you have been told, and for looking for "trends".

By the way, I have no expertise in this area at all. BUT- If you'd like to look at what's available, try

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery.htm

Bear in mind that the U.S. Government restricts U.S. citizen access to some types of images available in other countries.

Sleep Well, my child

Love Dad
---
http://everything2.com/node/1015116

smart guys for an everyday site.


----------



## blowslow23 (Jul 1, 2009)

no lotek that was the only leaf that had a mutation, none of the other leaves on the plant looked like that


----------



## Lemmongrass (Jul 1, 2009)

I had this one beautiful plant that hermed on me my first crop. i fimmed it and it got 4 tops. 1 of these top stems had this white streak from the top to the bottom on the right half of the middle leaf, and the adjacent leaf to the right of it. but only leaves growing off on side of the stem, and in the straight line up. so only like 6 leaves on the whole plant, but it looked like a white ribbon running down here. didnt translate to albino buds tho,


----------



## blowslow23 (Jul 1, 2009)

haha that sounds badass.


----------



## RCCIZMe (Jul 2, 2009)

oh man they got the hubble also, what is the rez on it and how hard is it to point ?


----------



## Lemmongrass (Jul 2, 2009)

lol well as explained by the wiki link, you could never focus an imager such as hubble at an object so close. the mirrors couldn't focus.


now if they happen to have a spy satellite with a spinning pool of a liquid metal with a magnetic error corrector or other curve shaping device, they could see your pimples.......


/foilhat


----------



## RCCIZMe (Jul 2, 2009)

dont turn on the lights i gots pimples !


----------



## blowslow23 (Jul 2, 2009)

i wonder how mj would grow in zero gravity haha


----------



## Lemmongrass (Jul 2, 2009)

hxxp://upsidedownplants.com/ZeroGravity.html

only other result i can find with pics that isnt just speculation is moss grown aboard space shuttle Colombia. it grew in a counter clockwise spiral.


----------

