• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Moon vs Area 51

ViperXX

Platinum Member
When I search Google Maps for area 51 I find it and am able to zoom in on a van in the parking lot. I can clearly make out that it's a van.

But when I Google 'high rez images of the moon landing sites' I can't zoom in as close and I can't make out very much detail.

Something seems fishy.
 
Satellites in low earth orbit are only about 100 miles above the surface of the planet. The moon is almost 239,000 miles away from Earth.
 
Let me guess, next you are going to complain that Google doesn't have street view images for the moon?
 
Moon was a good movie, one of the best Sci Fi's the last decade (second best to Cloud Atlas IMHO).

The Area 51 movie being released later this year looks terrible. The 2011 movie (51) was terrible.

In fact any tv show or movie even remotely related to area 51 is usually terrible, besides Independance Day and X-Files.
 
When I search Google Maps for area 51 I find it and am able to zoom in on a van in the parking lot. I can clearly make out that it's a van.

But when I Google 'high rez images of the moon landing sites' I can't zoom in as close and I can't make out very much detail.

Something seems fishy.

Ok gonna come clean... you ready for this?

The moon isn't real.
 
It's probably just the lunar atmosphere interfering with the image.
Hey now, a nebula is more tenuous than the Moon's thin atmosphere.

Sci-fi shows:
"The nebula is interfering with sensors."


"Oooh, a nebula! Let's hide there!"



A nebula's interfering with your sensors? My god, those ships would be utterly blind trying to fly through clear skies on Earth.
 
551204_10150743530565395_570430394_12037183_1112018237_n_zpsbc170684.jpg
 
Interesting, I always figured Google owned and used satellites, so it's actually planes that they use? Or a combination of both I guess? Satellites for the larger low res areas and planes for the detailed smaller high res areas maybe?


Actually Google SHOULD launch some high resolution satellites as they could then task them as needed. Imagine another Boxing Day Tsunami like the one on 2004 and this time Google tasks the birds to image before, during and after the events are calculated to hit. With that kind of data they'd draw more people. If only they could monetize Google Earth...


Brian
 
OP, do you have any idea how many eclipses we've had since 1972? The landing sites have long since been obliterated.
 
Back
Top