White House roof edited in USGS photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Charles Packer, May 9, 2004.

  1. I was using www.terraserver.microsoft.com to look at
    aerial photographs of Washington and noticed that the USGS has
    obscured the roofs of the White House and the two government
    buildings to the east and west by overlaying them digitally
    with featureless, though tastefully tinted, rectangles. Possibly
    they're trying to conceal the location of the missile launcher
    recently put in place, which a newspaper photo showed to be on
    the roof of the Treasury Department building east of the White
    House. I used a screen snapshot to capture the USGS image
    and have put it on my Web site, temporarily at
    http://cpacker.org/awh.jpg

    I don't know how familiar with Washington the typical interested
    viewer of this will be, so let me know if I should identify
    the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
    barricades.

    --
    (Charles Packer)
    http://cpacker.org/whatnews
    Charles Packer, May 9, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Charles Packer

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Charles Packer wrote:
    >
    > I'm planning to include
    > this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
    > barricades.


    Sounds like someone not intending to fly on US domestic airlines any
    more :)

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, May 9, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On 9 May 2004 04:49:53 -0700, (Charles Packer)
    wrote:

    >I was using www.terraserver.microsoft.com to look at
    >aerial photographs of Washington and noticed that the USGS has
    >obscured the roofs of the White House and the two government
    >buildings to the east and west by overlaying them digitally
    >with featureless, though tastefully tinted, rectangles. Possibly
    >they're trying to conceal the location of the missile launcher
    >recently put in place, which a newspaper photo showed to be on
    >the roof of the Treasury Department building east of the White
    >House. I used a screen snapshot to capture the USGS image
    >and have put it on my Web site, temporarily at
    >http://cpacker.org/awh.jpg
    >
    >I don't know how familiar with Washington the typical interested
    >viewer of this will be, so let me know if I should identify
    >the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    >this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
    >barricades.



    I'm quite sure, however, Al-Qaeda and similar groups are VERY
    interested in this sort of thing.

    Tell me, why do you seem to INSIST on making it easy for terrorists in
    DC ????
    Keith A. Glass, May 9, 2004
    #3
  4. Charles Packer

    Doug Guest

    Oh puleeeze!!!

    You really aren't That naive, are you?

    Doug


    "Keith A. Glass" wrote

    > Tell me, why do you seem to INSIST on making it easy for terrorists in
    > DC ????
    Doug, May 10, 2004
    #4
  5. Charles Packer

    r5 Guest

    (Charles Packer) wrote:
    > the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    > this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's


    I thought they installed missile launchers on the roof
    of the White House back in the early 1980's...
    r5, May 10, 2004
    #5
  6. Charles Packer

    Ron Hunter Guest

    r5 wrote:

    > (Charles Packer) wrote:
    >
    >>the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    >>this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's

    >
    >
    > I thought they installed missile launchers on the roof
    > of the White House back in the early 1980's...


    Yes, and why would they NOT want some people to know where, exactly,
    they are located? Duh?
    Ron Hunter, May 10, 2004
    #6
  7. Charles Packer

    George Kerby Guest

    On 5/10/04 3:29 AM, in article , "Ron
    Hunter" <> wrote:

    > r5 wrote:
    >
    >> (Charles Packer) wrote:
    >>
    >>> the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    >>> this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's

    >>
    >>
    >> I thought they installed missile launchers on the roof
    >> of the White House back in the early 1980's...

    >
    > Yes, and why would they NOT want some people to know where, exactly,
    > they are located? Duh?

    SOME people are dumber than rocks...


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, May 10, 2004
    #7
  8. Charles Packer

    John Doe Guest

    >Yes, and why would they NOT want some people to know where, exactly,
    >they are located? Duh?


    Where they are located is irrelevant, given the relatively small area of the
    rooftops. However, what type of missile system they have there is the real
    reason for any secrecy. If you know what is there, you can determine it's
    capabilities, and how best to attack it.
    John Doe, May 10, 2004
    #8
  9. Lisa Horton wrote:
    >
    > Charles Packer wrote:
    >
    >> I'm planning to include
    >>this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
    >>barricades.

    >
    >
    > Sounds like someone not intending to fly on US domestic airlines any
    > more :)


    He does appear to have some sort of pathological desire to get his name
    on every list every where.

    He's already on a lot of them, rest assured.


    --
    The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
    often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
    of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
    --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
    Tiny Human Ferret, May 10, 2004
    #9
  10. Keith A. Glass wrote:
    > On 9 May 2004 04:49:53 -0700, (Charles Packer)
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I was using www.terraserver.microsoft.com to look at
    >>aerial photographs of Washington and noticed that the USGS has
    >>obscured the roofs of the White House and the two government
    >>buildings to the east and west by overlaying them digitally
    >>with featureless, though tastefully tinted, rectangles. Possibly
    >>they're trying to conceal the location of the missile launcher
    >>recently put in place, which a newspaper photo showed to be on
    >>the roof of the Treasury Department building east of the White
    >>House. I used a screen snapshot to capture the USGS image
    >>and have put it on my Web site, temporarily at
    >>http://cpacker.org/awh.jpg
    >>
    >>I don't know how familiar with Washington the typical interested
    >>viewer of this will be, so let me know if I should identify
    >>the structures in question with arrows. I'm planning to include
    >>this image in a forthcoming Web page about Washington's
    >>barricades.

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm quite sure, however, Al-Qaeda and similar groups are VERY
    > interested in this sort of thing.
    >
    > Tell me, why do you seem to INSIST on making it easy for terrorists in
    > DC ????


    Everyone needs a hobby. This would appear to be his.

    Trolling for webhits, I mean.

    I wonder how many agencies read his hits log.





    --
    The incapacity of a weak and distracted government may
    often assume the appearance, and produce the effects,
    of a treasonable correspondence with the public enemy.
    --Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
    Tiny Human Ferret, May 10, 2004
    #10
  11. Charles Packer

    Thad Guest

    George Kerby wrote:


    > SOME people are dumber than rocks...



    Speaking from experience? ;-)


    -Thad L.
    Thad, May 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Charles Packer

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Keith A. Glass writes:

    > I'm quite sure, however, Al-Qaeda and similar groups are VERY
    > interested in this sort of thing.


    Not really. I'm quite sure they have other plans.

    > Tell me, why do you seem to INSIST on making it easy
    > for terrorists in DC ????


    Tell me, if you destroy an aircraft loaded with radioactive material
    over Washington with a missile, where does the radioactive material go?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, May 10, 2004
    #12
  13. Charles Packer

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Ron Hunter writes:

    > Yes, and why would they NOT want some people to know where, exactly,
    > they are located? Duh?


    "On or around the White House" is already very exact indeed. Whether
    they are two feet to the right or two feet to the left doesn't matter.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, May 10, 2004
    #13
  14. Charles Packer

    Mxsmanic Guest

    John Doe writes:

    > However, what type of missile system they have there is the real
    > reason for any secrecy. If you know what is there, you can determine it's
    > capabilities, and how best to attack it.


    If you know it's on the White House, you can assume it's a short-range
    system (otherwise there'd be little point in putting it right on the
    White House). A short-range system wouldn't be able to hit anything
    that wasn't already over the metropolitan area. So the bad guys could
    fly a small plane loaded with radioactive waste or CBW agents and
    explosives over the city. If the suicide pilot explodes it, the entire
    metropolitan area is contaminated. And if a missile is fired at it and
    destroys it ... the entire metropolitan area is contaminated.

    So putting a missile launcher on top of the White House is of
    questionable utility. Anything close enough to justify defensive
    measures on the WH itself is already far too close, no matter what
    measures are taken. It's kind of like mounting a fire extinguisher in
    the middle of an oil tank farm.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, May 10, 2004
    #14
  15. Charles Packer

    ~ Darrell ~ Guest

    I would suggest the 'editing' is to obscure not only what missile type
    (probably a platform based on the Stinger) but also what warning receivers
    are in place, and possibly hide the Phalanx type system that is normally a
    last ditch back-up.
    ~ Darrell ~, May 10, 2004
    #15
  16. George Kerby <> wrote in message news:<BCC4EFA3.46874%>...
    > On 5/10/04 3:29 AM, in article , "Ron
    > Hunter" <> wrote:
    > > Yes, and why would they NOT want some people to know where, exactly,
    > > they are located? Duh?

    > SOME people are dumber than rocks...


    At any rate, somebody alerted me by e-mail to uncensored USGS images
    at www.terrafly.com. Presumably they were taken earlier than the ones
    at Terraserver and also earlier than whatever was put in place on
    those roofs that they don't want us to know about.

    --
    (Charles Packer)
    http://cpacker.org/whatnews
    Charles Packer, May 10, 2004
    #16
  17. Charles Packer

    Miguel Cruz Guest

    Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Tell me, if you destroy an aircraft loaded with radioactive material
    > over Washington with a missile, where does the radioactive material go?


    How high is the aircraft, what sort of radioactive material, what amount of
    explosive, and what are the wind conditions?

    miguel
    --
    Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    Miguel Cruz, May 11, 2004
    #17
  18. Charles Packer

    Mxsmanic Guest

    Charles Packer writes:

    > At any rate, somebody alerted me by e-mail to uncensored USGS images
    > at www.terrafly.com. Presumably they were taken earlier than the ones
    > at Terraserver and also earlier than whatever was put in place on
    > those roofs that they don't want us to know about.


    There are plenty of spy satellites in the world, some of why can read
    the time on a person's watch. I rather doubt that terrorists have only
    the USGS as a source of images. I also rather doubt that they care
    what's on the roof of the White House, anyway.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic, May 11, 2004
    #18
  19. "~ Darrell ~" <> wrote in message
    news:QDQnc.19698$...
    > I would suggest the 'editing' is to obscure not only what missile type
    > (probably a platform based on the Stinger) but also what warning receivers
    > are in place, and possibly hide the Phalanx type system that is normally a
    > last ditch back-up.
    >


    I SERIOUSLY doubt that there's a Phalanx system.

    Spraying central DC with 20mm explosive shells at 6000
    rounds per minute seems like a rather bad idea.

    Keith
    Keith Willshaw, May 11, 2004
    #19
  20. Charles Packer

    Nick N Guest

    Vs. what?
    Nick

    >
    > I SERIOUSLY doubt that there's a Phalanx system.
    >
    > Spraying central DC with 20mm explosive shells at 6000
    > rounds per minute seems like a rather bad idea.
    >
    > Keith
    >
    >
    Nick N, May 11, 2004
    #20
    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. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    498
    David J Taylor
    Dec 13, 2004
  2. UNDOING edited photos

    , Feb 15, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    528
    Stewy
    Feb 16, 2005
  3. Madison Lapierre
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    508
  4. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    793
  5. Annika1980

    White House using stitched photos?

    Annika1980, Apr 30, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    692
    Question Quigley
    May 2, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page