White House roof edited in USGS photos

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Based on a 10x10cm sample ? - Sure....

Have you ever noticed that you can read an entire page in a book even
though the only truly sharp part of your visual field barely covers
one or two words?

Meaningless.

I think it is about time you provided factual evidence of your claim to be
able to read a writswatch from space.

Put up - or shut up.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Perhaps you would like to give us an example to illustrate your
somewhat ambiguous statement ?

No.

Put up - or shut up.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

Once again, I ask the question - What are the alternatives to
opticaly-based data ?

You can obtain data from multiple sources and use it to enhance
primarily optical images. That's how traditional hand retouching
works, incidentally.

You obviously cannot answer the question, Stop squirming and admit you don't
know what you are talking about.

....Or put up evidence to support your claim.

Steve Andrew writes:

Meaningless.

If you say so.

I think it is about time you provided factual evidence of your claim to be
able to read a writswatch from space.

Put up - or shut up.

Sorry.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Tiny Human Ferret writes:

Besides, if you knew what time it was when you took the images, just
photoshop the correct time onto the face of their watch!

You know the intervals at which the photos are taken, not the current
time of day as shown on the watch.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Steve Andrew writes:

Put up - or shut up.

No.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Steve Andrew writes:

You obviously cannot answer the question ...

You're very curious.

... Stop squirming and admit you don't
know what you are talking about.

I can't admit what isn't true.

...Or put up evidence to support your claim.

No.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Baloney !!....the only words you can read are the ones focused on. You are
unconsciously scanning the rest of the page with short scans, which gives
the illussion that you can comprehend the whole page. Try it sometime....no,
I mean, 'Really' try it.

Doug


"Mxsmanic" wrote

Have you ever noticed that you can read an entire page in a book even
though the only truly sharp part of your visual field barely covers one
or two words?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:

You obviously cannot answer the question ...

You're very curious.

... Stop squirming and admit you don't
know what you are talking about.

I can't admit what isn't true.

...Or put up evidence to support your claim.

No.

Troll...

Mxsmanic wrote:
Steve Andrew writes:
Based on a 10x10cm sample ? - Sure....

Have you ever noticed that you can read an entire page in a book even
though the only truly sharp part of your visual field barely covers one
or two words?

You can't.

And in any case, that's irrelevant. To apply it to what's being discussed,
you'd have to prove that people can read an entire page in a book when
presented with a uniformly gray sheet of paper - because that's what's
reaching the satellite optics.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu