UFO Updates
Thanks to everyone who commented on the original UFO find, although we’re still not sure what they are, there’s been some interesting developments.
Ian Pottinger and jher were the first to find that there are in fact eight of these UFOs over Florida, at the following points
One - Two - Three - Four - Five - Six - Seven - Eight
and Tensus used keyhole to map the points showing that they make a very neat grid.
Yoshino and jher later noticed that the UFOs are not limited to Florida but can also be found over L.A.
One - Two - Three - Four - Five - Six - Seven - Eight - Nine - Ten - Eleven - Twelve - Thirteen
and Tensus again mapped the points, which appear in an almost straight line.
Things the UFOs are definitely not…
Space debris or another satellite?
Derek & Tensus discovered that the close-up images of Florida are taken by AerialsExpress.com at an altitude of 17,500 feet so are aerial photos and not satellite images.
Marks added to obscure famous peoples homes?
While there’s no doubt the whitehouse photos were processed for security it is very unlikely these UFOs are intentional ‘cover-ups’ due to the neat grid layout.
Water towers?
The UFOs are just too big to be water towers (and there’s no shadow).
Anomaly produced by the stitching software?
Shi Ju says
Definitely they’re NOT marks for picture stitching. In most stitching software (like for making panoramas) the algorithm comes down to finding sharp and contrasting details and aligning those spots with each other.
Things the UFOs still could be…
An alien spacecraft?
It’s still possible!
A weather balloon?
Tm says
The “Grid” is centered around an airfield, common launch points for weather balloons.
Although Klem says
All currently used radiosonde devices (weather balloons) are latex, yellowish beige to transluscent
and Jello adds
The object in question here does not cast a ground effect, therefore does not exist in the air.
A ‘lenticular’ cloud?
Patrick was the first to float this idea and the images he posted do look similar to the UFOs, although it is unlikely clouds would form in neat grids.
Condensation on the lens?
Possibly the current forerunner for most likely explanation, Stuart said…
Condensation inside some sort of housing would be my guess. If the drop were directly on the lens it would be effectively invisible. Put it a few inches/feet away and have the camera shooting with a very deep depth of field (as you would with a small aperture) and it would look just like that anomaly.
Something else?
Possibly one of: Peppermint, baseball, Vogon ship, crop circle, planet, thumbtack, ballbearings, smoke, pond, swamp gas, golf ball, satellite, flying ninja, space junk or contact lens as others have suggested!
”
These things look EXACTLY like this:
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56961,00.html
the altitude issue seems to point in order direction, but they look too similar to reconsider
This orbs are definitely not of human origins. Their technologies defies human intelligence and that enough keep us barking of what they really are.
KairoAnnunaki doesn’t seem to have grasped the point that I was raising. This was that although a shiny sphere suspended in the atmosphere would undoubtedly reflect the colours of the sky (mainly blue and white - the latter from clouds and/or sun glare) into a camera located above it, these spheres (if that is what they are) seem to some extent to refract the colours of the terrain that is below them, which made me wonder if they might be translucent, or, if one might entertain a more exotic possibilty, perhaps they bend light.
Some have wondered why these spheres wouldn’t have been obviously visible from the ground (especially if they are large objects). I would suggest (although I am not actually yet convinced that they are real physical objects), that this could be because they are so well camouflaged against the sky that it would be only too easy to overlook them, as here: http://www.ufocasebook.com/stanfordlinearaccelerator.html
[Did this earlier post of mine inspire the search in LA?]
the world is strange enough and its nothing new these UFO sightings. They are experienced all over the world & whether people want to belive it or not, we ARNT alone. Its not really that hard to believe…. why dont people stop convincing themselves that we are the only ones int he universe… the ideas of UFO’s came from somewhere.think about it, why else would someone make this up.
there are some fake ufo sightings but dont let that make u think the rest are a hoax.
Condensation. Why? As has been previously pointed out - it could not be the software, as it clearly stiches togather at points like roads and bridges (just look at the reflection on any river to see this clearly). BUT - if there were a condensation drop in the middle of the frame, it would show up on usable shots and in a straight line (assuming the pilot flew in a straight line.)
We know that the FL shots were taken at 17,500.
Yes - the shadows are sometimes different, but then again, so are the shadows on the ground. Come on, people, I hate to rain on your UFO parade, but this is condensation. And, I might add, that makes it far more interesting to me than some silly discussion over alien (or stealth) technology.
And what has Google to say about this? Has anyone send this images to Google?
Looks like Oink! has discovered the truth(see above)! Stratellites - Large balloons that sit at 70,000 feet and are used for communication (eg. WiFi etc.) and are kept into place using “GPS detectors and propulsion engines”. Only flaw I see in this theory is that only one is required to cover a 300,000 square mile area. Possibly the Fla & La orbs are tests of this technology. Get the full story at:
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,56961,00.html
Thanks Oink!
Oink (and Omnus), are you suggesting that one of these balloons could keep pace with the aircraft that took the Google map pictures (presumably slipping back on occasion and then catching up again to explain the gaps in the photographic sequence)? Even if we are considering an array of ballons over which the aicraft might have flown, these would have to be tethered at the ground in order for them all to be at (apparantly) the same altitude. Does LA really have a string of balloon ground stations running through the city? I don’t live there, but I seriously doubt it. I am afraid that I think that the balloon explanation is one of the least likely to be true.
Professor Ping, I’m not sure who was the first to report the light reflection/refraction and color differences. We all saw it. But that’s not the point.
I guess KairoAnnunaki’s color examination is interesting in the following matter. If that was some consistent shooting of that area (meaning airplane or satellite was taking pictures one by one) and those Things were two waterdrops or stratellites or moisture drops that camera kept shooting frame to frame THEN THEY WOULDN’T SWAP COLORS!
As for the water droplet theory, I think that “J” (above) asked a very pertinent question: why isn’t the “drop” visible in every picture taken by the plane during its run, and also (as suggested by someone else, I think) why is it not always in the centre of the pictures? This is at least, however, to some extent, a testable hypothesis, since anyone with a camera can try putting a water droplet on the lens or on a glass plate at variable positions between the lens and the ground to see if they can duplicate the effect. I look forward to hearing from anyone who claims that they can (although it still wouldn’t constitute proof).
Finally, while there undoubtedly are UFOs (unless the pictures and videos are all fakes) that look virtually identical to the Google “UFOs”, I woud still tend to think this is just a coincidence and rather put my money on this phenomenon being due to inadvertent artifacts introduced in the mapping process (possibly out of focus spherical-headed mapping pins).
Ok I’d like to clear a few things that has been eating at me while reading these posts.
1. When zooming in or out of the photo on the computer ANYTHING recorded on that photo will zoom with it. If there was a water droplet on the lense, then it would zoom with the image. Diferent story if zooming the ACTUAL camera.
2. It is quite possible that there isn’t a bunch of them in LA. Depending on the zoom of the camera, it could be possible that this potential aircraft was following under the plane for a short time. Thus showing up every time the camera snapped a photo.
3. Whoever said that it was a planet should stick to watching cartoons.
Oh and one more thing…..
1. Just because the spheres are blue-ish does not mean that they are water droplets. If they are reflective, then they could be reflecting the BLUE sky.
No, the only balloons that are tethered in southern California are strings of little helium balloons anchored at car dealerships. There are no array of huge ass balloons sitting right in the flight path of Ontario airport. Definitely haven’t been any hanging around for 60 years, either, as one person claimed.
So, we’re back to balloons AGAIN, eh? And admonitions from clearly disinterested parties (why do they post here) to lighten up. What’s next? Recycling the lenticular cloud hypothesis?
How long does a drop of *liquid* water on an external surface last on a plane flying at 17,500 feet? How does a drop of water get on an internal surface?
These cameras are not just “hanging” out in the wind - they are in housings, and it is not inconceivable that a drop of condensation froze on this housing, creating a drop of ice in the shape of a drop of water. There is no reason to discount this becuase it doesn’t appear in every shot - not every shot in a sequence would necessarily be used. In addition, depending on time of day, direction of flight, orientation of the platform aircraft, etc, each dot should appear different if this is indeed a droplet.
And they would indeed SWAP COLORS due to many varibles, many of which have been mentioned numerous times in these threads.
These could not be anything flying at 70,000 feet because the camera was in a plane flying at 17,500 feet and the camera was pointing DOWN!
They are just water stains on the film or scanner. Nothing to worry about.
Okay, here’s my theory: The original image shows a flying saucer. It got a lot of attention pretty quickly, so the Powers That Be couldn’t just remove it from the database because that would be too obvious, and there were already millions of copies on computers the world over. So some MIB went and did a quick cut and paste job on both databases, cleverly rotating some of the dots and changing the colors on some. They even had the great idea of putting the word Google on some. Better than that, they put _part_ of the word Google on some others. Now it’s a hopeless muddle! Mission accomplished.
This all came to me as soon as I remembered to put my foil lined hat on.
Cheers!
Shi Ju
If you want to know who was the first to draw attention to the the light reflection/refraction and colour differences of the “spheres” as a possible clue in solving this mystery, then just look back at the first page of comments on this topic. KairoAnnunaki also plagiarised my observation that one of the “spheres” was elliptical rather than circular (and that this might suggest motion blur) as well as very nearly plagiarising “J”’s contribution concerning the water droplet theory (see above).
As for the remainder of your comment, in part it merely reiterates what I have already said twice, but I put it to you that if the “spheres” are caused by a water droplet on the lens, then light from the terrain beneath could indeed refract through it into the camera, thus explaining not only the very fact of colour variations, but also the fact that, to some extent at least, the colour does seems to “reflect” that of the terrain beneath (an important exception to this is that I can see no green in any “sphere” over areas of vegetation).
I am, however, unhappy with the water droplet theory for other reasons that I have already stated, and, since then, Space Boy has suggested another objection to me. The predominant colour of the “spheres” is undoubtedly light blue, and we assume this to be a reflection of the sky, but if this droplet is within the camera housing (even if that only amounts to a lens hood), how can it “see” the sky?
Its a Vimana - (The ancient Mahabharata, just one of the sources on Vimanas)
According to the Dronaparva, part of the Mahabarata, and the Ramayana, one Vimana described was shaped like a sphere and born along at great speed on a mighty wind generated by mercury.
In another Indian source, the Samar, Vimanas were “iron machines, well-knit and smooth, with a charge of mercury that shot out of the back in the form of a roaring flame.”
Samaranganasutradhara describes how the vehicles were constructed.
Forget UFOs. Google Maps also seems to have found an image of Bigfoot:
http://www.tropicofcubicle.com/2005/04/08/google-maps-zoom-in-on-corporate-campuses/
Many of these pictures are taken at slight angles. Atmospheric turbulence will tend to cause these aircraft to roll slightly. Though I’d suspect these cameras have some sort of stabilization mechanism, it’s not implausible to suggest that the raw imagery taken by the airplane HAS to line up perfectly with the grid references they use in the finished product.
These slight rolls could easily explain why the object seems to move slightly. It could also explain why it might seem to “brighten” significantly when it does “move”: the aircraft might be turning its belly towards the sun.
For the person suggesting that this was some magic thing that would “bend light”, refracting the light from the ground and/or atmosphere in impossible ways, bear in mind that water DOES this. Reflection AND refraction. Especially since the object is out of focus, so will the image being reflected/refracted.
Sunlight is white. Light from a blue sky will be blue. Other light will be whatever color it is. Momentary cloud cover (shading the plane) or rolling away from the sun may cause that white light to get darker. Turning into the sun may cause it to get brighter. Look at the shadows of the things on the ground and compare it to the direction of the light in the object. Consider that the light on the object may not even be directly from the sun/sky. It could be reflected off of a camera housing, for example, or parts of the aircraft itself.
You can rule out any sort of meaningful post-processing as the cause. The image IS being photographed, and IS naturally lit. Given that it follows the path of one specific set of photographic equipment as it makes its way along a couple of photographic expeditions, that would seem to suggest that the object is somehow “tied” to that expedition. The expeditions tend to follow an easily-assimilated grid flight path. The objects appear in a nice grid. It’s probably not hanging OFF of the plane, since it would be difficult for it to survive (and avoid detection during) the plane’s takeoff. The only reasonable place for it to be is on the glass, either on the exterior, or perhaps slightly interior (keeping in mind that it would still need to be lit).
Now, what evidence is there that it’s a UFO (of the space alien variety)?
It reflects some light? Therefore it might be sorta metallic? Space alien UFOs are sorta metallic, right? It’s blurry.. space alien UFOs are usually blurry in photographs, right? What else? It sits somewhere between the camera lens and the ground? Probably not ON the ground or NEAR the ground, since there’s no shadow, so it might be high in the air.. Space alien UFOs are high in the air, right?
This is not evidence. “If we can’t come up with an easy explanation, then it’s gotta be a space alien!” “If I don’t understand the explanation, then the explanation must be wrong and it must be a space alien!” Go away.
Water droplets also act like a prism. Because there is one solid white color, and a blue, there should also be yellow, orange, red, green, purple, green etc.
Publicity stunt. Good one, too.
Obviously the *camera* is not hanging out in the wind. What about the housing… is it recessed or flush with the exterior surface of the aircraft? If it’s flush, the *housing*, and it’s transparent surface, is hanging out in the wind, isn’t it? If it’s recessed, it would (aside from not being terribly aerodynamic) be subject to INCREDIBLE turbulent air flow and probably a reduced pressure due to Venturi effect. I wouldn’t characterize the air at any exterior surface of a flying aircraft as calm, even if it is recessed. At the low vapor pressures and constant air buffeting, it would evaporate or sublimate rather quickly UNLESS the conditions were right for icing. And then I would not expect an isolated drop but rather a crystalline film.
>>it is not inconceivable that a drop of condensation froze on this housing, creating a drop of ice…
It is to me. In all my life, I’ve never observed a single drop of condensation form anywhere. Never. Not even close. Ever take a shower? Ever defrost the window of a car? There’s no magic of pressure and temperature at altitude that makes this any different than your everyday experience. Condensation forms as a thin film and accretes until the conditions dictate otherwise. Maybe your bathroom mirror forms one perfect full size drop at a time but mine fogs up until there are many drops. Even surface defects that provide nucleation sites for condensation do not cause one drop to form to the exclusion of any other condensation on the surface.
Where is the other moisture in this scene? One drop hung around long enough to freeze but all the rest evaporated? OK, it is possible, but is likely? No.
It’s also possible that this unlikely scenario could have repeated itself on two different flights at two times in two states a continent apart… AND result in a single frozen drop of virtually the same size in both cases…
It’s also possible that all the air in this room will (through purely random motion) end up in one cubic inch in the corner, however briefly. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this event.
No more posts from me for a few hours so understand I’m not ignoring replies/
i actually believeiwas abducted by aliens a couple months back. Sitting in bed watching a movie at about 10pm, next thing you know, im sitting up havinga smoke at 2am. They’re were several ufo sightings around that time in my area. And really wierd things were happening that whole night. Might sound unbelievable but its what i think!
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
its not a perfect circle like the other images..
Probably because that thing was flying so damn fast.
I found some more “water droplets” though.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page941.html
Haha.
I don’t think it is a water droplet because if you zoom out on at least one of the pictures you can find more than one. This would mean that it could not be a droplet because only one would show up in a frame and if there was more than one than that number of droplets would show up in a frame.
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Zoom out on 13, 11, 10, 6, 4, and 1 of the California pictures above and you will find mulitples. I haven’t found any associated with the FL pictures but m y eyes and what they used to be.
Theres no way its water droplet , i so agree with you !!
Ever consider NASA’s Project Blue Beam ..
The image is a composite of aerial photographs. If you look closely, you can see where various parts are “stitched” together. Sometimes you don’t have to look closely, as in the places where there is an obvious change of seasons or wildly different lighting.
So? The camera is programed to take pictures of certain areas in magnification. Just because it’s all stitched together doesn’t mean anything. Those sphereical anomalies are in the middle of a good clear magnification, a very accurate magnification.
They are the OTHERS
“Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves… So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations… It’s real,and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts.”
Quoted from DoD News Briefing, Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Anyone else looking over the other major metropolitan areas? I am currently scanning the maps over NYC/NJ area.