🚀 go-pugleaf

<wrcowan1@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
news:432ba36f$0$10630$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
>
>
> Chris wrote:
> > <wrcowan1@hal-pc.org> wrote in message
> > news:43265b69$0$10624$a726171b@news.hal-pc.org...
> >
> >>>
> >>>So when those images get to the OPs center...what do they do with them?
> >>>Surely they wouldn't send the information to the troops on the ground
> >
> > now
> >
> >>>would they...I mean just because that is waht the equipment is designed
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>doesn't mean they have to use it that way does it. Sorry, but the
> >
> > clueless
> >
> >>>one in this argument is you if you think they don't have the capability
> >
> > to
> >
> >>>get realtime images on the ground, hell even ones an hour or two old
> >
> > would
> >
> >>>suffice....but don't let logic get in your way.
> >>
> >>
> >>No, I am aware of how satelitie images are gathered, used and
> >>interpreted.  I use them all the time.  First satelite resources have to
> >>be moved into place.  Then the information gathered.  It does not get
> >>instantly analyized nor does it get directly into the field.  Even if
> >>satelite information is available it still may not tell you if a road is
> >>passable (debris or obstacles) or even how high the water is.  I know we
> >>can get real time images in to the field but we do not have people in
> >>field who have the skills to do interpretation that you are suggesting
> >>to be done.  It is one thing to get images showing armor, vehiclesand
> >>emplacements but it is another to use it to tell you water depths or
> >>hidden obstacles.
> >>
> >>MRC
> >
> >
> > So you are still saying that if you can see a car up to it's wheels in
water
> > that you can't tell how deep it is? Maybe you need to learn what the
> > capabilities really are.
>
>
> I see you have been watching too many movies.  I suggest you study a
> little bit about aerial photgraphic interpretation and remote sensing.
> Also you act as if there is a car hub cap at every intersection.
>
> I am fully aware of the capabilities of the resource available as well
> as limitations.  The men on the ground do not get 6in, or 1 ft
> resolution images.  Many times it is 1m or 3 m resolution images.
>
> MRC

Are you saying that at 3m resolution you can't tell how deep the water is
around a car, hell you can read the plate so why couldn't you see how deep
it was buried? You need to do a little more research yourself. And as a
matter of fact there were cars on almost every street, and those that had no
cars had other things to judge the depth by. Nice try but your argument is
useless....