Why is Antarctica so badly mapped? No photos of those areas. (aliens, government)

[Hazel W]

If you can tolerate books - I'm teasing but you'll know what I mean, I hope - there is an excellent book with hundreds of photos and maps surrounded by great stories of the areas. "The Complete Story: Antarctica" by David McGonigal and Dr. Lynn Woodworth.

There is even a story of the ozone hole - "the largest to date". I think the date was September 2000.

It is a oversized book with some 600 pages. The main sections are The Poles (including the geology), The Wildlife (plenty of penguins), the history of the explorations from 1487 to the present, and what life is like at the poles.

The publisher is Global Book Publishing. ISBN number: 1 74048 0 13 9. Reprinted 2002.

Enjoy.

[ncole1]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

Why is the South Pole and Antarctica so badly mapped and no detailed photos exist in the public domain?

On the internet the Google map is mainly blurred out, particularly in the middle. There are some photos of the edge pieces though. All this could be because there are fewer satellites which pass over that area of the Earth, however, there are more than enough satellites passing over Earth to get decent images of all areas of the Earth. I guess if we were mounting a polar exploration, we could get maps, and photographs of dangerous ice areas so why not get images in Google?

Personally, the evidence I have seen leads me to firmly believe that aliens are here in our solar system and in fact everywhere out there in space. I also believe they are here on Earth too but mainly in places where humans cannot go due to our relatively frail biology, such as the South Pole. With different biology different environments are possible as habitational places and that is one of their strengths I believe. It also makes it possible to survive in freezing cold space environments much easier than we could ever do.

Of course, a lot of this is total speculation and conjecture, but in my mind it IS strange how we have maps and images of every other areas of Earth but almost total blanks of the poles.

OK, so ice and snow is not sexy like cities and fields but there are still features such as mountains, solitary polar bears, research stations, penguin and seal colonies, and even warm water lakes (in the summer) at the poles which are of interest to some people. In this day and age, there are satellites which are on polar orbits yet we are denied decent photographs of these regions.

What do you think?

It isn't mapped much because it isn't inhabited much.

/thread

[NightBazaar]

Originally Posted by ocpaul20

OK, so ice and snow is not sexy like cities and fields but there are still features such as mountains, solitary polar bears, research stations, penguin and seal colonies, and even warm water lakes (in the summer) at the poles which are of interest to some people. In this day and age, there are satellites which are on polar orbits yet we are denied decent photographs of these regions.

What do you think?

Polar bears at Antarctica? Polar bears live in the Arctic. There are none in Antarctica. Just saying...
https://www.units.miamioh.edu/cryola...htm#PolarBears

[sedimenjerry]

You figured it out. Antarctica doesn't actually exist. It's all just a ploy by the government.

[el_marto]

Does it not shift and change regularly because it's just ice, melting and freezing? Or maybe there's a Thing buried under the ice... sleeping... waiting...

[Ralph_Kirk]

Mapping satellites are in closely polar orbits. Not perfectly polar--they're angled to spend the most time over the most important (read: Moneymaking) areas.

The satellites need regular maintenance time, which they normally take during the portion of the orbit over away from the sun (photo satellites), and they take as much maintenance as possible. That's fully half the year for the poles.

High resolution photography costs more money because the way orbital digital imaging works, higher quality imagery requires more imaging time along the orbit of that particular area.

Therefore, areas are imaged only at the resolution necessary according to the salable uses of the imagery. For Antarctica, that's predominantly for geological studies--and for geological studies, broad-area is much more valuable. So you get what the people who pay for the ride want to see.

[D. Scott]

Bigfoot has a time share there. Its the only way he gets a break from all these groups, TV shows, who are constantly looking for him. Ol Biggie can sit and drink a case of Colt 45 in peace safe from prying eyes.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

"I think you should book a trip there."

I was there in 1963 and flying helicopters for the Navy over and around the Palmer Peninsula. It is quite mountainous there. I was aboard an icebreaker, The Coast guard Eastwind, WAGB 279. It was the first and likely the only American military ship ever to run aground inside an active volcano. Hey, you can't make this stuff up. I have aerial photographs of it.

Some cruise ship ran aground there last year. At least the water is warm inside the volcano.

[303Guy]

Something that has just occurred to me, there is no point in mapping Antarctica or the north pole - there simply are no towns or roads there!

Just kidding.

In my parts I find that terrain coverage is dependent of the population of the area. My interest is in fishing spots and if the coverage band from populated areas overlaps the offshore area of interest, I can see where the fishing spots are. Likewise with hunting, some areas are better covered than others due to the coverage area overlap.

[ss20ts]

Google is about making money as all businesses are. Why would they spend a small fortune to get great photos of ice blobs that are constantly changing? There's no economic pay back for them.