You didn't have to be Nostradamus to see this coming....

[MONOLITH]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/13/wgoogle13.xml








.

[farmboy]

not surprised

[Ronin]

Hmm, Google has a policy (so they say) of working with the military to obscure sensitive areas.  But the military has to ask that only very low res images be made available.  Perhaps the British military didn't ask for that.  A fairly glaring omission I think.

I have looked at several military bases in the U.S. and all the ones I have looked at have fairly high detail.  Even "Area 51" has it with a resolution down to about one meter.  For such a secret base (USAF still denies its existence), you'd think they'd have it obscured.  Nellis AFB outside of Las Vegas, Hunter Army Airfield in Savannah, GA, Fort Stewart in Hinesville, GA, and Dobbins AGB in Marietta, GA are also in fairly high resolution.  With all this concern about base security from terrorists you'd think they would ask that these images be set to very low res.  Especially since you can't even drive through bases like Fort Stewart anymore (highway 67 (IIRC) - quickest route between Pembroke, GA and Hinesville, GA).

[BOBK]

I think those are good points.

Also, the article ststed something about it being known and accepted that the sat shots used sre not necessarily up to date...sometimes back a couple of years.  I myself have been using it to pinpoint possible crash sites around the world, and have noticed how the mosaic doesn't always match up, time wise.

So why on Earth would it be so easy to get, up-to-date mind you, shots of such sensitive war environments...to me that justr doesn't add up, some how???

[Ronin]

I think those are good points.

Also, the article stated something about it being known and accepted that the sat shots used are not necessarily up to date...sometimes back a couple of years.  I myself have been using it to pinpoint possible crash sites around the world, and have noticed how the mosaic doesn't always match up, time wise.

So why on Earth would it be so easy to get, up-to-date mind you, shots of such sensitive war environments...to me that just doesn't add up, some how???

@Bob, if you want a location for Area 51 in Google Earth, I can post a Google Earth location file for it.  There's not much to see, there, though.

Google Earth only recently updated the area around where our house is.  It does  not show some of the subdivisions that have been completed around ours.  And some of those have been there for three or four years.  When Google Earth first came out, the area around our house was only available as high altitude USGS survey photos.  Very low resolution. And none of the subdivisions around our house were even in the pictures.  In fact stuff that was built after 1996 still wasn't in the pictures.  They've only updated that in the last year.  It still shows the three schools up the road from us as cleared land, though.  And those schools have been finished and operating for nearly three years.

It's possible that the terrorists were just buying satellite imagery from companies on the web (anyone can do that if you have the money) rather than using Google Earth.  (or possibly the new Microsoft map thingy?)  Buying satellite imagery can get you fairly up to date pictures (less than a week old).

[Da Fish]

Hmm, Google has a policy (so they say) of working with the military to obscure sensitive areas. But the military has to ask that only very low res images be made available. Perhaps the British military didn't ask for that. A fairly glaring omission I think.

I've got a feeling that it is a policy they have with the american military, not the international community (I still laugh at the "do you mean french military defeats?" thing on google), despite the "special relationship" the two nations have. That said, considering most decent international map makers produce maps on degrees and minutes, you dont even need to look on the net.

Also with regards to the Area 51 claim, for the USAF or any other agency to request a reduced resolution of any pictures would be a admission that it exists.

[boookal]

well there's no denying that Area51 exists. That's been very public for many years.
Most of the higher res images are taken by airplane. My g/f does it, although what she does is rarely for Google Earth, more for farm associations. EVERY military base in the US has restricted airspace above and around them. Sometimes the airspace only goes to 10k feet, and other times it goes higher. Rarely does she fly above 8k feet. In order to fly into the restricted airspace, you have to ask permission first. Sometimes it's just on the radio when you're ready to enter the airspace. Other times you have to make arrangements ahead of time.
Now don't you think that if you have to make arrangements to fly over a high security area, that they'll have plenty of time to put away whatever they don't want people to see? Also, you can be dam sure that everybody that they are tracking everything that enters their airspace, and I'm not talking about watching you fly on a radar scope.

[Ronin]

well there's no denying that Area51 exists. That's been very public for many years.
Most of the higher res images are taken by airplane. My g/f does it, although what she does is rarely for Google Earth, more for farm associations. EVERY military base in the US has restricted airspace above and around them. Sometimes the airspace only goes to 10k feet, and other times it goes higher. Rarely does she fly above 8k feet. In order to fly into the restricted airspace, you have to ask permission first. Sometimes it's just on the radio when you're ready to enter the airspace. Other times you have to make arrangements ahead of time.
Now don't you think that if you have to make arrangements to fly over a high security area, that they'll have plenty of time to put away whatever they don't want people to see? Also, you can be dam sure that everybody that they are tracking everything that enters their airspace, and I'm not talking about watching you fly on a radar scope.

Because of the Nellis Air Range about half the state of Nevada is restricted airspace.  Much of restricted air space has nothing to do with bases on the ground.  Part of it is because of that area being used for missile and rocket tests.  Part of it is because of ACM training.  Part is because of other flight training by military personnel.  There might not be an actual base within 100 miles of restricted airspace.  There are _lots_ of reasons that airspace can be restricted and only a couple have anything to do with air bases or secret installations.

The Air Force still will not admit that Area 51 or the Groom Lake Facility exists.  It is a black base and is not on the "public" books in the Federal budget.  It is a secret facility even though people flying into and out of the base using chartered flights out of McCarran airport in Vegas is well documented.

Just because a base is a classified facility and is not acknowledged by the military doesn't mean that it isn't written about, photographed or filmed.  It just means that the Air Force does not confirm or deny it's existence.  They don't talk about it at all.  This is in keeping with the National Security act for anything that is classified.

Area 51 is still _secret_ because no one outside its security halo knows what goes on there.  Lots of people watch, film and speculate on it.  But none of them knows what really goes on there or what that installation is for.  It is rumored that the F117 was tested there.  I have never seen official confirmation that that is true.  Probably because that would mean that USAF would have to acknowledge that the base exists.  And, to my knowledge, they have not.

[farmboy]

it's kinda like the delta force.  unofficially, its been acknowledged.  people formerly affiliated with it have stated its existence.  but officially, the fed is (rightly) tight-lipped, and any knowledge of its current operations/objectives is kept within the people working there.