Slashdot Mirror

It's being broadcast from a military base. It's purpose is known. To communicate information to military personnel.

There is one big problem with this theory - lack of said information. 30 messages over several decades are laughably insufficient. They wouldn't be enough to even arrange delivery of food to one base, on any given day.

As far as I know, most of information in armies, starting from 60s and up to this day, is transmitted over telephone or teletype or computers. The transmission channels are usually buried cable (copper or fiber,) radio relay (at a few GHz,) and the satellite. Many of these channels use encryption. HF is basically not used much because of the required antenna size, power, and limited channel capacity.

HF has larger range (tens of thousands of km) but that is not always an advantage, especially among the military. That's why most of the radio links are V/UHF and microwave; they are harder to intercept, you need a satellite flying overhead. If the microwave link uses high gain antennas (which is not unusual) then most of the energy is in the beam, and not much is in side lobes. If you set up the link with two dishes and use just enough power to reliably communicate, radiation to the side will be far below the noise, especially if the satellite doesn't have a high gain antenna. Use CDMA to further make life difficult for the eavesdropper.

So where the HF may be of use?

Theory 1: The HF may be chosen because it is received all over the world.

This is untrue. The HF propagation depends on many factors, such as time of the day and state of the ionosphere and the location of both ends of the link. Only the ground wave is stable, but it is limited to a couple hundred km radius. Since the messages are rare and not repeated for 24 hours, we can presume that the transmission is intended for receivers that are hearing the signal all the time. They can't be far away.

Theory 2: The HF may be chosen because this is a beacon to monitor propagation conditions.

This, IMO, is true. This explains the buzz - it is a convenient, simple signal that can be used to detect which way (around the planet) the signal is coming from (and also to see if you receive it from both directions.) The messages are of no consequence; they can be just a test of the microphone or of the entire system. Since there is no confirmation of reception of messages (which on HF is essential) I think the transmitter and the receiver had a parallel telephone link, and the receiving end reported over the telephone when the message was received. Perhaps the message itself was random. Some messages were clearly sent by a technical personnel from the transmitter room, not by a trained speaker in a studio.

Most of the speculation about the messages themselves is also ridiculous. For example:

The names used in the message are used in some Russian spelling alphabets, and spell out the first word - "naimina", which one commenter at the UVB-76 blog translated as "on names".

This "translation" is wrong, the word "naimina" is random and has no meaning. This message can be anything. It was repeated twice within a minute. Any HF operator here can tell that you need to be pretty sure about the quality of your link to do that - the message was repeated only to allow the receiving end to check the message, not to tune to the signal or to fiddle with the filter or to rotate the antenna... (well, a beam antenna for 4 MHz would be large, but not impossible.)

Some say the buzz is a "dead man's switch." It could be, but not likely. First of all, there are no backups, and any transmitter has to do down occasionally, at least for maintenance - 100 kW final stage is not a joke, you don't change vacuum tubes that are under live 25 kV. There could be a backup transmitter in the same building, of course, but even then there probably ar

http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/

No Street View!?

IT's here; http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/

http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/

Anybody else find it scary that there is a cloud obscuring the site and pretty much nothing else?

You can see it on this zoomed-out map.

Forget about the radio...I want the Russian "cloud parking" technology.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/

Anybody else find it scary that there is a cloud obscuring the site and pretty much nothing else?

You can see it on this zoomed-out map.

Forget about the radio...I want the Russian "cloud parking" technology.

http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/07/the-buzzer-uvb-76/

It's indeed a good idea to check google street view first... you wouldn't want to accidentally run into a local quantum singularity, a giant bug, or fire

The answer is that you put in some crappy little 1-block dead-end streets here and there.

There's sometimes entire towns that only exist on paper.

Someone even wrote a book about that.

It is worth noting that in the coordinate system most used today (WGS84), this is no longer true.

See this explenation or check google maps.

There are a few places we can look at...

Maybe Greese doesn't want to be known for more google flashers like this guy...(NSFW) http://media.googlesightseeing.com/2009/5/ajdt209.jpg or possibly they don't want to be caught going to strip clubs like this guy.. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&geocode=&q=cheaters&near=Providence,+RI&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=41.838618,-71.402206&spn=0.061005,0.116386&z=13&om=0&cbll=41.807434,-71.403703&cbp=1,567.3164656162561,,0,0.7974551423761682 and just for fun here are some other odd sightings... http://mashable.com/2007/05/31/top-15-google-street-view-sightings/

Link: http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/03/09/the-mysterious-case-of-the-vanishing-airport/

I guess you could have Lotus Bridges everywhere. Might be neat to have a row of bowties from outer space delineating England and Scotland, e.g.

-l

Google Sightseeing is on the case. Unfortunately the image isn't that great.

"The plant is said to be so big it can be seen on Google Earth"

Not quite, see that entry on GSS.
Additionally, seeing a single tree on Google Earth isn't something special at all,
there's millions of them in the high resolution imagery areas.

I'm surprised TFA does not mention the newly announced by Amnesty International "Eyes on Darfur" website. Oh, Beirut imagery has been updated to reflect the situation after the 2006 Lebanon War.

Here's a few stories in the same vein:
Documenting Humanitarian Crisis with Google Earth
New Google Earth Layers: Darfur and more
The Israel-Lebanon Conflict in Google Earth
Beirut Destruction Through Remote Sensing
Israel - Lebanon Conflict and Geospatial Data Access

Google Earth used to be cool, but it's turning into one massive billboard (perhaps one of the ideas all along). In Sydney for Australia Day, Google (and whatever the Microsoft's copy of it is called) did flyovers with huge pre-publicity. People lay out banners, .com wannabees stuck huge logos on their rooves, people picnicked and love-maked all on the hope of becoming 'famous' (with four million other people). Google put it up and at the end of the day, Sydney wasn't Sydney any more. Instead, Sydney was transformed into one big banner ad:

http://googlesightseeing.com/2007/02/27/australia- day-flyover/

Then we had the world's biggest photojournalism fakery with Google restoring New Orleans to pre-Katrina. Beyond weird. Did they think the residents wouldn't notice?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/02/new_orlean s_demolished/page2.html

Google Earth is sponsored infotainment. If you'd like to see Earth without the Ads, there's a little mob called NASA I hear are going places: http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/

So you're saying that the pic with the bigger size, regardless of content, is the one to be picked at all times, right?

No. I'm saying that there are automated procedures that people use for determining what a "better" image is and I gave you one example of it. I suspect Google uses something more complicated than that. Nevertheless, almost all of them would evaluate the pre-Katrina images to be better than the post-Katrina images.

In other words, why would the katrina pics have gone up, then gone down, if the info hadn't changed? Why would it have ever put them up?

There are many possibilities. The most likely are:

* They may just have written the software to do automatic image selection; it may simply not have existed before.

* The software may have existed, but it may not have gotten around to processing those images yet.

Either way, it makes sense that the default was to show the newest version of any map area first, until the software got around to determining that an older image had higher quality.

Furthermore, why is there and automated process out there that exists to say which pic is better based on some random criterion like file size?

Because satellite and aerial imagery frequently contains bad images, due to bad weather, smoke, smog, fog, transmission errors, etc., and it makes sense to get rid of those images. Given the amount of digital imagery Google is putting on the web, obviously, they can't look through all of them by hand.

Here's another example, a 150ft giant bug that's now been removed from Google:

http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/09/18/giant-alie n-bug/

That shows you that Google does look for bad images, they do remove bad images, and it's almost certainly a partially automated process (although they also have shown that, occasionally, they will intervene manually, and I'm sure they will restore the post-Katrina images).

I recently got DSL ==\^_^/==

Here are some top secret sites:
THe Pentagon
Area 51
Yuma Proving Grounds Marine Base

All of this imagery is publically available and pointless to obfuscate. Google and is not a threat to national security, unless of course government entities accidentally allow sensitive websites to be indexed.

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=&c=&t=k&hl=en& ll=45.864396,-122.75147&z=19

Look for the little flying machine!

This fine rooftop example for instance:

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=1211&c=&t=k&hl =en&ll=54.506361,-1.35223&z=19

Or this gem in Arizona:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=85022&ie=U TF8&z=17&ll=33.634542,-112.059485&spn=0.004582,0.0 13475&t=k&om=1

As long as they had a ballpark sized ad, they should be ok.

Ryan-

There is even Penis Spam on google maps:

The Yarm School in the UK (Kids Drawing a Penis on the Roof)

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=&c=&t=k&hl=en& ll=54.506361,-1.35223&z=19

.. and of course the classic Penis-on-the-frozen-lake:

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=1211&c=&t=k&hl =en&ll=41.049308,-73.600947&z=18

There is even Penis Spam on google maps:

The Yarm School in the UK (Kids Drawing a Penis on the Roof)

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=&c=&t=k&hl=en& ll=54.506361,-1.35223&z=19

.. and of course the classic Penis-on-the-frozen-lake:

http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=1211&c=&t=k&hl =en&ll=41.049308,-73.600947&z=18

Hmm. This conjours up the idea of a Google Earth style function to waste our times on, inevitably leading to discovering phallic graffitti left on the moon by its various visitors. http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/12/14/pen-15-clu b/

http://googlesightseeing.com/2006/11/28/top-10-nak ed-people-on-google-earth/

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/index.php?s=cater pillar

Although this one has been erased in the name of housing development.

The world's largest radio telescope, the GMRT sits near the city of Pune, India.

Here's some information on the project: http://www.gmrt.ncra.tifr.res.in/
A nice aerial layout: http://www.gmrt.ncra.tifr.res.in/gmrt_hpage/Images /Diagrams/yarray.gif
And of course Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMRT

And GoogleSightseeing: http://googlesightseeing.com/2005/08/04/arecibo-ra dio-telescope/

Including boobies!

Including boobies!

We went to the moon but.... Here are some interesting tidbits: - We went to the moon at the height of a very protested against war, the Vietnam War, which in turn was a big factor in keeping people happy. - Winning the moon race was due, we finally went in the final year of JFKs decade long cahllenge (1969). - Perfect video from the moon but we can only get delayed satellite phones from the middle east? - Photos are damn near perfect, those astronauts must have been great photographers as well as navigators. - Questionable radiation amounts for such a small craft. - Great deception can happen with only a few people hiding behind a big system (i.e. when the cops have mafia cops, they hide in unsuspecting police force, not a grand conspiracy, but a small faction using cover and decoy) - There is a big ass moon like lake near area 51, yes kooky, but look for yourself http://googlesightseeing.com/maps?p=21&c=&q=groom+ lake,nv&ll=37.272835,-115.798731&sll=36.518555,-11 5.561924&spn=0.060081,0.085402&sspn=0.127029,0.120 678&t=k&hl=en I hope we went to the moon but I also wanted the Pat Tillman story to be true, and the Jessica Lynch story, and the WMD story, etc. For world domination over the russians after wrestling wiht them for years, would we fake going to the moon? Yes I hate questions like that to.

Here is a picture of one http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/12/ufo/

If you just want to look at cool stuff with Google Maps/Earth, without the searching. This place www.googlesightseeing.com has tons of cool stuff found in Google Maps/Earth.

For more interesting sights see Google Sightseeing.

There's links to a few interesting places on the new images over at Google Sightseeing, including Highway 610 and Lakefront Airport.

By back yard I mean generally in the same hemisphere.

Lest we forget:

Chernobyl

and

Annotated

Thanks to googlesightseeing for the links.

XBZMSTZ - there I am not a fucking script. Tee guy who decided they needed a script for every login as an asshole. Have it for signups, have it for AC posts. NOT FOR EVERY FUCKING LOGIN. Asshole. Even worse, he is just stupid. Illogical. Bad designer.

How about...

HousingMaps: Craigslist apartment listings plotted on Google Maps.
Found City: A community-generated map of interesting places in New York City.
Google Sightseeing: A blog that shows "the best tourist spots in the world via Google Maps' satellite imagery."
Cheap Gas: Find cheap gas prices, powered by gasbuddy and Google Maps.
GoogleTraffic:

Think of the advertising revenue that these sites are getting, and that they are the first sites that are taking advantage of this technology. Real-estate agents can give you a map of all the open houses with locations that could be given to clients. Gas prices? Well, you could map out pricing on your website with all your station locations with current prices. Your imagination is the only limitation...

It's an actual grove of trees that spells out "Luecke"
(the landowner's name) when seen from the air.

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/04/08/luecke /

Or
http://www.googlesightseeing.com/

This is a cool site:

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/

It makes for fun websites, such as Google Sightseeing.

According to googlesightseeing,Mr AC nailed it!

The guys over at Google Sightseeing need to get a copy of this - I want to see the empire state building in 3d!

Where exactly where has this been shown "all over the place"? If anything, google sighseeing seems to discredit this theory.

They are legion

Compare the Illinois category to somewhere like New York over at Google Sightseeing and you'll see why they need to Google map the crimes in Chicago - there's bugger all else going on!

Compare the Illinois category to somewhere like New York over at Google Sightseeing and you'll see why they need to Google map the crimes in Chicago - there's bugger all else going on!

Hey, I found more discussion on this at this site. Looks like someone tried to submit it to slashdot, but they didn't put it up.

Anyway, they have found multiple photos at google with the same object. Some think it's something on the sat lense (noway - those things are super protected) and other's think it is part of the image matching markers in the software.

Have fun with it - there are some funny remarks at that website ("it's a mentos ad!")

There is quite a number of theories about what it could be.