«

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:09:43 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> The ominous view from a satellite.
>
> http://www2.hi.is/myndir/1016267?18493
>
> Is this a bad sign?

Photochop.
Google earth showing the same coordinates shows no such items as shown in
that photo.

richard wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:09:43 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> The ominous view from a satellite.
>>
>> http://www2.hi.is/myndir/1016267?18493
>>
>> Is this a bad sign?
>
> Photochop.
> Google earth showing the same coordinates shows no such items as shown in
> that photo.

What's the date of the photo in Google Earth? And the date on
the photo on the University of Iceland's site? Google Earth is
more accurate and the photo has to be photoshopped? Really?

Evan Platt wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:10:54 -0700, richard<>
> wrote:
>
>> Photochop.
>
> O...M...F...G.
>
>> Google earth showing the same coordinates shows no such items as shown in
>> that photo.
>
> Yes. Must be. Because Google Earth pictures are like from what, last
> week?

Last year, if you're lucky.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:19:57 -0700, Jordon wrote:

> Evan Platt wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:10:54 -0700, richard<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Photochop.
>>
>> O...M...F...G.
>>
>>> Google earth showing the same coordinates shows no such items as shown in
>>> that photo.
>>
>> Yes. Must be. Because Google Earth pictures are like from what, last
>> week?
>
> Last year, if you're lucky.

I swear, the intelligence that runs amuck around here could fill the vast
void of the universe. If the item(s) in question weren't there 300 years
ago, it is most likely they never were. I mean like how long does it take
to create a volcano? A few days?
Evan must believe that everything he sees is therefore 100% genuine. I'll
bet I could him my arizona ocean front property too.

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:

> Or maybe the images from GE are too outdated to show the recent
> geological changes made during this current eruption?

Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous.



--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.

Aardvark <> wrote in
news:hqav45$cmi$:

> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>
>> Or maybe the images from GE are too outdated to show the
>> recent geological changes made during this current
>> eruption?
>
> Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous.

Adjective: contemporaneous
1. Occurring in the same period*of*time
2. Of the same period

[WordWeb.info]

I think you may have wanted to use a slightly different word,
like, maybe "current", "up to date", or something?

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:22:18 +0000, thanatoid wrote:

> Aardvark <> wrote in
> news:hqav45$cmi$:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>
>>> Or maybe the images from GE are too outdated to show the recent
>>> geological changes made during this current eruption?
>>
>> Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous.
>
> Adjective: contemporaneous
> 1. Occurring in the same periodÂ*ofÂ*time 2. Of the same period
>
> [WordWeb.info]
>
> I think you may have wanted to use a slightly different word, like,
> maybe "current", "up to date", or something?

Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous with current events.

Better?



--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.

Aardvark <> wrote in
news:hqb92u$7uk$:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:22:18 +0000, thanatoid wrote:
>
>> Aardvark <> wrote in
>> news:hqav45$cmi$:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:16:53 -0400, Meat Plow wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or maybe the images from GE are too outdated to show the
>>>> recent geological changes made during this current
>>>> eruption?
>>>
>>> Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous.
>>
>> Adjective: contemporaneous
>> 1. Occurring in the same periodÂ*ofÂ*time 2. Of the same
>> period
>>
>> [WordWeb.info]
>>
>> I think you may have wanted to use a slightly different
>> word, like, maybe "current", "up to date", or something?
>
> Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous with current
> events.
>
> Better?

A little. Just ignore me.

richard <> writes and having writ moves on.
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:19:57 -0700, Jordon wrote:
>
>> Evan Platt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:10:54 -0700, richard<>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Photochop.
>>>
>>> O...M...F...G.
>>>
>>>> Google earth showing the same coordinates shows no such items as shown in
>>>> that photo.
>>>
>>> Yes. Must be. Because Google Earth pictures are like from what, last
>>> week?
>>
>> Last year, if you're lucky.
>
> I swear, the intelligence that runs amuck around here could fill the vast
> void of the universe. If the item(s) in question weren't there 300 years
> ago, it is most likely they never were. I mean like how long does it take
> to create a volcano? A few days?

Yes. For example, the ParÃ*cutin volcano in Mexico formed from a
fissure in a corn field on February 20, 1943 to a volcano in less
than a week.

> Evan must believe that everything he sees is therefore 100% genuine. I'll
> bet I could him my arizona ocean front property too.

Maybe you "could him" if he's interested.

Mike "aren't you tired of being you?" Yetto
--
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice they are not.