3173: Satellite Imagery - Revision history

Elektrizikekswerk: /* Explanation */ No reason for tag given. Explanation seems complete, removed tag.

2026-03-30T08:47:01Z

‎Explanation: No reason for <incomplete> tag given. Explanation seems complete, removed tag.

82.13.184.33: /* Explanation */

2025-12-08T09:13:13Z

‎Explanation

82.132.237.203: /* Explanation */ There's no reason to believe this is (supposed to be) the stitched-together Google Maps. For the kind of intelligence-gathering these seem to be involved in, you work around (or despite) any unavoidable cloud-cover in the view.

2025-12-02T17:23:07Z

‎Explanation: There's no reason to believe this is (supposed to be) the stitched-together Google Maps. For the kind of intelligence-gathering these seem to be involved in, you work around (or despite) any unavoidable cloud-cover in the view.

DollarStoreBa'al: Are there a bunch of clouds on Google maps? Of course not. They stitch images together to create an image of the earth without any visible clouds, because a satellite image with clouds is useless.

2025-12-02T15:35:03Z

Are there a bunch of clouds on Google maps? Of course not. They stitch images together to create an image of the earth without any visible clouds, because a satellite image with clouds is useless.

2001:8003:1DC8:7900:31B9:D83C:5290:CC61: /* Explanation */ Spelling fix

2025-11-30T04:27:58Z

‎Explanation: Spelling fix

82.132.245.70: /* Explanation */

2025-11-27T15:54:26Z

‎Explanation

82.132.245.70: /* Explanation */

2025-11-27T15:51:20Z

‎Explanation

Barmar: /* Transcript */

2025-11-27T13:15:17Z

‎Transcript

Barmar: /* Transcript */

2025-11-27T13:14:59Z

‎Transcript

Mtcv: /* Explanation */ clouds are a give-away

2025-11-27T08:48:20Z

‎Explanation: clouds are a give-away

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:47, 30 March 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	==Explanation==		==Explanation==
−	~~{{incomplete\|This page's explanation has been obscured, and we're currently trying to figure out what it says. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}~~
	This comic is another entry in the "[[:Category:My_Hobby\|My Hobby]]" series of comics, and the first entry into the series since mid-2023.		This comic is another entry in the "[[:Category:My_Hobby\|My Hobby]]" series of comics, and the first entry into the series since mid-2023.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 To add to the confusion, the chosen location does not appear to have ''any'' relevant information recorded for it, such as whether it should contain a military base (of their own or their allies'; or of a potential/actual adversary). The lack of any other information, in the light of clearly hidden details, leads to a non-justifiable level of paranoia and concern over what might be being obscured.
-As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinent things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
+As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinent things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he must have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
 Randall's deception could be exposed by sufficiently detailed clouds floating above the colored panels. If the tactical image was really pixelated, the clouds would appear pixelated too. Not to mention if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.
-In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Which, though it is indeed a possible source for the general public, could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the expected newer ones. This would be very concerning. And also make them wonder how those that could hack their system would be so remiss as to use watermarked and clearly dated images.
+In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Though this is indeed a possible source for the general public, it could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the expected newer ones. This would be very concerning. It may make them wonder how those that could hack their system would be so remiss as to use watermarked and clearly dated images.
 ==Transcript==

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinent things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
-Randall's deception could be exposed if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.
+Randall's deception could be exposed by sufficiently detailed clouds floating above the colored panels. If the tactical image was really pixelated, the clouds would appear pixelated too. Not to mention if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.
 In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Which, though it is indeed a possible source for the general public, could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the expected newer ones. This would be very concerning. And also make them wonder how those that could hack their system would be so remiss as to use watermarked and clearly dated images.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Explanation==
 {{incomplete|This page's explanation has been obscured, and we're currently trying to figure out what it says. Don't remove this notice too soon.}}
-This comic is another entry in the "[[:Category:My_Hobby|My Hobby]]" series of comic
+This comic is another entry in the "[[:Category:My_Hobby|My Hobby]]" series of comics, and the first entry into the series since mid-2023.
 [[Cueball]] and [[Ponytail]] are intelligence analysts, scrutinizing a projected image of an apparent satellite (or aerial) photograph. It features a parched landscape, of indeterminate scale, though has some clear watercourses flowing through it that suggest a fairly wide river and tributary, plus thin tracks that must be dirt roads serving various small buildings or compounds (depending upon the true zoom level) rather than game-trails.
-In the middle of the image, spanning the river banks around a small bend, the image ''appears'' to have been pixelated, certainly to the two characters viewing it.
+In the middle of the image, spanning the river banks around a small bend, the image ''appears'' to have been pixelated, at least to the two characters viewing it.
 They express concern that they're relying upon censored resources. Their commentary indicates that they are perhaps working for an intelligence agency working with classified imagery, who would expect to be using raw imagery, not something obscured. They're first considering whether they'd been provided the 'public'-level classification prepared by the satellite operator. Alternatively, they have stumbled upon a location that higher levels of their own agency (or partner domestic organisations) deem of greater security than they are entitled access to. The most frightening thought, though, is that a foreign counter-intelligence agency is protecting their own national secrets by hacking into their image-feeds and rendering them functionally useless.
-To add to the confusion, the chosen location does not appear to have ''any'' relevant information recorded for it, such as whether it should contain a military base (of their own or their allies'; or of a potential/actual adversary). The lack of any other information, in the light of clearly hidden details, leads to a justifiable level of paranoia and concern over what might be being obscured.
+To add to the confusion, the chosen location does not appear to have ''any'' relevant information recorded for it, such as whether it should contain a military base (of their own or their allies'; or of a potential/actual adversary). The lack of any other information, in the light of clearly hidden details, leads to a non-justifiable level of paranoia and concern over what might be being obscured.
 As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinent things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
-Randall's deception could be exposed by sufficiently detailed clouds floating above the colored panels. If the image was really pixelated, the clouds would appear pixelated too. Not to mention if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.
+Randall's deception could be exposed if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.
 In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Which, though it is indeed a possible source for the general public, could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the expected newer ones. This would be very concerning. And also make them wonder how those that could hack their system would be so remiss as to use watermarked and clearly dated images.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 To add to the confusion, the chosen location does not appear to have ''any'' relevant information recorded for it, such as whether it should contain a military base (of their own or their allies'; or of a potential/actual adversary). The lack of any other information, in the light of clearly hidden details, leads to a justifiable level of paranoia and concern over what might be being obscured.
-As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinant things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
+As the caption reveals, the ''only'' pertinent things in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since the combined structures stretch across several implied features (the width of the river and significant quantity of its bank, with possible buildings served by one of the dirt-tracks). Since this is another one of [[Randall]]'s hobbies, he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the indicated assumptions.
 Randall's deception could be exposed by sufficiently detailed clouds floating above the colored panels. If the image was really pixelated, the clouds would appear pixelated too. Not to mention if the photography was not perfectly aligned with his own squares, even after rotation to more conventionally align with the usual modern {{w|Map#Orientation|'grid north'}} orientation.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ==Transcript==
 :[Cueball and Ponytail are standing on either side of a board on a wall, which is displaying a satellite image of an area without cities. A large river is going through the left part of the image, going from north to south. Another river joins it from the left in the lower part of the image. A lake is in the right upper part of the image. There are a few white lines running through the image, probably roads. However, in the left part of the image over the middle of the north/south going river there is a square area which looks pixelated into 36 equal sized smaller squares. The color of the image is brownish with white and black and gray scales as well. The 36 smaller squares are held in these colors, though not white or black, but each small square is held in a uniform color, where the rest of the landscape has a smooth transition in colors from one place to the next.]
 :Cueball: Wait, when was this imagery taken? Is this censorship the work of the contractor? One of our people? '''''Foreign actors!?'''''
 :Ponytail: Do we know who's operating a facility at that location?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 27 November 2025
Line 22:		Line 22:

	As the caption reveals, the ''only'' thing in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since this is another one of [[Randall\|Randall's]] hobbies he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the observed assumptions.		As the caption reveals, the ''only'' thing in that physical location are some very large squares, given various flat hues closely matching the original average ground appearance, entirely intended to be misinterpreted as post-process image pixelization. Since this is another one of [[Randall\|Randall's]] hobbies he most have done this a number of times, on the off-chance that someone will make the observed assumptions.
		+
		+	Randall's deception could be exposed by sufficiently detailed clouds floating above the colored panels. If the image was really pixelated, the clouds would appear pixelated too.

	In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w\|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Which, though it is indeed a possible source for the general public, could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the new one. This would be very concerning (and also make them wondering how those that could hack their system, would be so stupid to use watermarked images.)		In the title text, he continues to further confuse the remote-sensing people by drawing a {{w\|watermark}} in the sand, leading people to believe the picture was taken in 2009 and is part of Google's publicly released material. Which, though it is indeed a possible source for the general public, could be unexpected in more serious and separately sourced ground imagery directly taken for more commercial, governmental or intelligence-agency purposes. Also if this is supposed to be either live images or those just taken today, and then if they have an old watermark from 2009 it seems like someone is feeding them old images, rather than the new one. This would be very concerning (and also make them wondering how those that could hack their system, would be so stupid to use watermarked images.)