Re: Icelandic volcano

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by richard, Apr 16, 2010.

  1. richard

    richard Guest

    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, Apr 16, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. richard

    Jordon Guest

    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?
     
    Jordon, Apr 16, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. richard

    Jordon Guest

    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.
     
    Jordon, Apr 16, 2010
    #3
  4. richard

    richard Guest

    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.
     
    richard, Apr 16, 2010
    #4
  5. richard

    Aardvark Guest

    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, Apr 17, 2010
    #5
  6. richard

    thanatoid Guest

    Aardvark <> wrote in
    news:hqav45$cmi$-september.org:

    > 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?
     
    thanatoid, Apr 17, 2010
    #6
  7. richard

    Aardvark Guest

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

    > Aardvark <> wrote in
    > news:hqav45$cmi$-september.org:
    >
    >> 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?


    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, Apr 17, 2010
    #7
  8. richard

    thanatoid Guest

    Aardvark <> wrote in
    news:hqb92u$7uk$-september.org:

    > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 02:22:18 +0000, thanatoid wrote:
    >
    >> Aardvark <> wrote in
    >> news:hqav45$cmi$-september.org:
    >>
    >>> 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?

    >
    > Maybe RtS thinks GE images are contemporaneous with current
    > events.
    >
    > Better?


    A little. Just ignore me.
     
    thanatoid, Apr 17, 2010
    #8
  9. richard

    Mike Yetto Guest

    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 Parícutin 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.
     
    Mike Yetto, Apr 17, 2010
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ww_crimson

    The Volcano

    ww_crimson, Jul 1, 2005, in forum: Case Modding
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,593
    unholy
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. paul s

    Re: Volcano webcam

    paul s, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,195
    paul s
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. Michael

    Re: Volcano webcam

    Michael, Jul 21, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,915
    CoOlEsT_n_CuTeSt
    Nov 18, 2008
  4. OldGringo38

    Re: Icelandic volcano

    OldGringo38, Apr 16, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    696
    Aardvark
    Apr 17, 2010
  5. §nühw0£f

    Re: Icelandic volcano

    §nühw0£f, Apr 16, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    608
    sandy58
    Apr 17, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page