Look here in Google Earth (with latest .kml)

38°11'11.34"N
118°32'23.97"W

Smoke plume?

On Sep 13, 6:03 pm, Ro > wrote:
> Smoke plume?

Could be, I guess. But it doesn't look that way to me.

Thanks, Bob K.

Bob Kuykendall schreef:
> On Sep 13, 6:03 pm, Ro > wrote:
>> Smoke plume?
>
> Could be, I guess. But it doesn't look that way to me.
>
> Thanks, Bob K.
>

I'm not sure at all, myself, therefore the second-opinion.

(and; thanks for ....? :-| )

Greets, Ro

On Sep 14, 2:03 am, Ro > wrote:
> Look here in Google Earth (with latest .kml)

At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
ignored, hindering the search.


Dan

On Sep 14, 12:38 am, Dan G > wrote:

> At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
> to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
> to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
> looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
> Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
> already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
> ignored, hindering the search.

I disagree. I think that people not searching in the officially
prescribed methodology do not hinder the search, except for in the
very minor way of consuming Google Earth bandwidth. They might not be
helping as much as they could be, but they certainly
_are_contributing, and are not hindering the search in any measurable
way.

Some people have, and know that they have, above average capacity for
pattern recognition under certain circumstances of target and
background, signal and noise. It makes sense for them to take
advantage of their strengths in whatever way they see fit.

The thing that will hinder the search most of all is lack of people to
search. I think that it is important to keep people engaged by letting
them work to their individual strengths.

Bob K.

Another issue that surfaced Wednesday is that the area with the updated
sat images do not ... or only very marginally... contain the areas that
were described as areas of "strong leads". Are there updated Sat
images covering those areas?



Larry

"01"





"Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
ps.com:

> On Sep 14, 12:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
> > to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
> > to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
> > looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
> > Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
> > already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
> > ignored, hindering the search.
>
> I disagree. I think that people not searching in the officially
> prescribed methodology do not hinder the search, except for in the
> very minor way of consuming Google Earth bandwidth. They might not be
> helping as much as they could be, but they certainly
> _are_contributing, and are not hindering the search in any measurable
> way.
>
> Some people have, and know that they have, above average capacity for
> pattern recognition under certain circumstances of target and
> background, signal and noise. It makes sense for them to take
> advantage of their strengths in whatever way they see fit.
>
> The thing that will hinder the search most of all is lack of people to
> search. I think that it is important to keep people engaged by letting
> them work to their individual strengths.
>
> Bob K.

Dan G schreef:
> On Sep 14, 2:03 am, Ro > wrote:
>> Look here in Google Earth (with latest .kml)
>
> At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
> to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
> to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
> looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
> Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
> already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
> ignored, hindering the search.
>
>
> Dan
>
>

Hi.. I respect your intension.

In my case; I search primarily via Amazon MTurk.
Thére was it I reviewed this "hit"-picture. And reported it.
And posted it as a "second-opinion" in this dread.

So I agree on your view, but me by someone jumped in to conclusions.

Greetings from The Nederlands,
Ro

On Sep 14, 2:19 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
> Another issue that surfaced Wednesday is that the area with the updated
> sat images do not ... or only very marginally... contain the areas that
> were described as areas of "strong leads". Are there updated Sat
> images covering those areas?
>
> Larry
>
> "01"
>
> "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com:
>
> > On Sep 14, 12:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
>
> > > At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
> > > to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
> > > to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
> > > looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
> > > Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
> > > already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
> > > ignored, hindering the search.
>
> > I disagree. I think that people not searching in the officially
> > prescribed methodology do not hinder the search, except for in the
> > very minor way of consuming Google Earth bandwidth. They might not be
> > helping as much as they could be, but they certainly
> > _are_contributing, and are not hindering the search in any measurable
> > way.
>
> > Some people have, and know that they have, above average capacity for
> > pattern recognition under certain circumstances of target and
> > background, signal and noise. It makes sense for them to take
> > advantage of their strengths in whatever way they see fit.
>
> > The thing that will hinder the search most of all is lack of people to
> > search. I think that it is important to keep people engaged by letting

> > them work to their individual strengths.
>
> > Bob K.

When I tried to cross mountain range from Flying M to Walker Lake
(flying tilted Google Earth) I spotted something light blue in the
shadow part of the canyon.
Can you guys check this 38 37 23.61 N 118 36 55.41 W
Also something light brown and white (like those planes at Flying M)
here :
38 36 55.89 N , 118 50 44.71 W
Ryszard Krolikowski

schreef:
> On Sep 14, 2:19 pm, "01-- Zero One" > wrote:
>> Another issue that surfaced Wednesday is that the area with the updated
>> sat images do not ... or only very marginally... contain the areas that
>> were described as areas of "strong leads". Are there updated Sat
>> images covering those areas?
>>
>> Larry
>>
>> "01"
>>
>> "Bob Kuykendall" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com:
>>
>>> On Sep 14, 12:38 am, Dan G > wrote:
>>>> At the risk of repeating myself, please don't try to use Google Earth
>>>> to search. Only use Mechanical Turk. The reason is simple - the area
>>>> to be searched is huge, and MTurk makes sure that each area gets
>>>> looked at, but only the appropriate number of times. If you use Google
>>>> Earth, you could well be looking at areas that have been searched
>>>> already by MTurk, wasting your time, while unsearched areas go
>>>> ignored, hindering the search.
>>> I disagree. I think that people not searching in the officially
>>> prescribed methodology do not hinder the search, except for in the
>>> very minor way of consuming Google Earth bandwidth. They might not be
>>> helping as much as they could be, but they certainly
>>> _are_contributing, and are not hindering the search in any measurable
>>> way.
>>> Some people have, and know that they have, above average capacity for
>>> pattern recognition under certain circumstances of target and
>>> background, signal and noise. It makes sense for them to take
>>> advantage of their strengths in whatever way they see fit.
>>> The thing that will hinder the search most of all is lack of people to
>>> search. I think that it is important to keep people engaged by letting
>
>>> them work to their individual strengths.
>>> Bob K.
>
> When I tried to cross mountain range from Flying M to Walker Lake
> (flying tilted Google Earth) I spotted something light blue in the
> shadow part of the canyon.
> Can you guys check this 38 37 23.61 N 118 36 55.41 W
> Also something light brown and white (like those planes at Flying M)
> here :
> 38 36 55.89 N , 118 50 44.71 W
> Ryszard Krolikowski
>

witch's .kml file do you use?

For this aria I don't have a recent set. URL?
Ro

> Can you guys check this 38 37 23.61 N 118 36 55.41 W

That's outside the .kml files I have. So either you've got a .kml that
I don't have, or you're looking at stale (pre-search) terrain.

> 38 36 55.89 N , 118 50 44.71 W

That one is inside a new .kml file that I didn't have previously. No
opinion as to its validity.

Thanks, Bob K.

These coordinates (38 37 23.61 N 118 36 55.41 W and 38 36 55.89 N ,
118 50 44.71 W ) are both outside the area of the new sat images
(taken after Steve's disappearance) so we can't check them without
actually going there.

Matt


> Can you guys check this 38 37 23.61 N 118 36 55.41 W
> Also something light brown and white (like those planes at Flying M)
> here :
> 38 36 55.89 N , 118 50 44.71 W
> Ryszard Krolikowski

On Sep 14, 8:58 pm, Ro > wrote:
> So I agree on your view, but me by someone jumped in to conclusions.

I did and I apologise.

I could have phrased my post better too. However I think there's
weight in the arguments I made. That said, if you do want to use GE to
search, this will be of interest:

http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2007/09/new_digital_globe_imagery_for_steve.html


Dan