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!
I was referring to the “multiples” comment. If the dots are some kind of flaw like a water spot (and I don’t think they are), there could well be more than one in a given shot, but not necessarily. Some appear to be close together on the image, but they look like they are in a real patchwork, if you look for the “joints.”
FYI. You can also see the multiples if yu scroll over on the pictures rather than zoom out. I am trying to figure out why there would be multipes as they appear if these were alignment markers or if they were just droplets and it just doesn’t seem to be consistent with thos explanations for me.
If it was the same droplet in multiple stitched together shots than there would be more of them and they would be identical but if you look at the multiples, the orbs differ in appearance. I guess they could be taken at different times of the day or different dates but then I would not expect to see multiples at all unless the photographers rigs are really messed up. If so, I would, again, expect to see many more.
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/gen/page941.html
Look exactly like this however o.o
I donno. I got my digital camera today and I’m taking pictures of the sky just for the heck of it. Probably won’t find anything. It’s cloudy also, and I just aimed for the sky openings. I want to do it when it’s clear though. I’m really determined to find some for myself.
I wonder if they are invading Canada yet? - I better check the greater metro areas & get back to ya
_Look exactly like this however o.o_
Yeah, they do look like that. I would have thought we’d have some kind of Official Explanation by now, at least an idiotic one if nothin’ else.
KairoAnnunaki, wow, you’re right — they do look exactly like that. Then they must be that. Because they look exactly like that. You know, because a few little clumps of 100 pixels or so in some photo some guy says he took look like … something in the sky. So that must be it. You’ve cracked the case, gumshoe. Good job.
Never said they were the same thing. I said they look like the same thing.
Don’t get worked up about it.
Condensation in the camera makes sense.
So why is it in a grid pattern, or a line?
Because the pictures tend to come from the same plane, using the same camera, flying in a straight line over and area, taking pictures.
One drop of condensation and you’ve got a batch of UFOs in a neat geometric pattern.
Maybe one can take a closer look, and properties of the LA drops and properties of the Florida drops will be observed to be different.
I doubt it is tacks holding up photos on a cork board … doing digital mosaics is far more efficient, and such a manual process wouldn’t be so sloppy, plus I’d expect that the tacks would come out in focus.
My 2c.
Cheers,
-danny
I found four (4) of the areas actually have multiple (2) UFOs.
I have my resolution set to 1280×1024, so if yours isn’t set that high you may need to zoom out a little more or pan around to the upper-right or lower-left.
Here are the links:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
What I find weird is that they are always in almost exactly the same formation.
~George
Hi all,
How about “sonic bangs”? Ok, that isn’t supposed to work due to lack of an airplane. But airplanes sometimes do that, they lack, as in the pentagon strike shootings.
This is a bang. Enjoy the show.
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/philippe.boeuf/robert/images/sonic3.jpg
Btw, if high-res pics come from airplanes and we know that for sure, this hypotesis, I suppose, is pointless (it should be bigger and population maybe would notice.) The fact the same phenomenon repeats itself makes it less believable (should be way much more difficult to shoot then that.) If it does it in certain areas only, that may be due to the presence of air bases. If it comes in patterns… that would really be weird for sonic bangs.
Moisture drop would fit better there; and if the drop doesn’t appear everywhere on the map, that may be due to better photo shootings to replace the stained ones with.
holy moly.
when will people stop focusing on the prospect of extraterrestrial activity (even though its in the realm of possible) and start thinking more locally.
governments (especially the US) havent told us 99.99% of anything, instead keeping it secret due to national security concerns, even thier brand of toilet paper is deemed classified nowadays to prevent terrorists from possibly decoding what agents had for lunch…
seriously… the likelyhood that these anomalies stem from TERRESTRIAL origins is far greater than these stem from extraterrestrial.
not that there arent aliens out there, not that they dont visit us from time to time, but jesus people… start thinking a bit more logically…
If you have a craft that travels at high speeds likely not to be seen by a human eye but cameras can catch it. And there have been occurances where these orbs fly around, people have video tapes of them, and you hear them all pointing and saying “Whoa what in the hell?!”. Yeah. And the same looking anomalies.
I’ve thought about that if it was going that fast enough and how a camera would catch it, should leave a trail by how fast it was going. No. This “thing” assuming, is going so fast it basically has teleportation.
*shrug*
You can keep calling it a water droplet.
I’ll keep calling it a U.F.O.
UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object, which is synonymous with alien spacecraft but in the literal sense is an unidentified object…flying.
I hate to spoil all the fun. I can explain the artifacts you see in these images. I have been involved in digital geospatial imaging for several years now, and have a solid understanding of how these technologies work.
So, here is the expanation.
Digital imagery of the earth is generally acquired in one of two ways:
- remotely sensed with digital sensors such as CCDs
- photographed on film and scanned into digital formats.
Generally, the difference is that digital sensors were onboard satellites, and cameras mounted on airplanes. Now that difference is blurred somewhat, as there are very good digital sensors for airborne platforms thses days.
So there are both types of imagery included in the data layers of the Google map. There are many data providers behind Google’s areial and satellite mosaic of data. No one vendor has the capacity to image all of the world at that resoution currently, so data from many sources are merged.
Some of these data are scanned aerial images from film. The photogrammetric scanners that perform this task are extremely sensitive instruments (10-25 microns), and even the smallest mote of dust will interfere with the imaging. The UFOs or, ‘drops of condensation’ you are seeing are in fact, small bits of dust and crap that the operator couldn’t remove from the scanner. If they occur in geometric grids, as one reader has pointed out, that only makes me more sure, as rolls are scanned automatically at a time. It is extremely difficult to remove all traces of dust from aerial scanners before scanning, even when they are kept in positive-pressure rooms and very carefully maintaned.
Case closed.
Hate to spoil all the fun speculation, though.
I found the mothership. Best video evidence. Right click save.
http://netpat.club.fr/video/sts80-1.mpeg
twinkle twinkle little star how i wonder what you are.
Grab a copy b4 this thing vanishes.
http://netpat.club.fr/video/nasa3.mpeg right click save. play to view
condensation in space?
“Case Closed.”……Now where have I heard that before?
Nice videos but, someone could also “prove” those wrong too in some way.
Still. That is a sophisticated dust partile. Evidence shows.
Where in the hell are these videos from? These have to be fake. Or old.
I love the end of that black and white one. Hahaha. It floats a little to the right and then they cut the camera off when it darts toward the flock. Hahaha.
I actually e-mailed Google about this to see what they have to say.
Uhm. What is that url before the video.
http://personal.netwrx.net/something/ufovideo.htm ?
http://personal.netwrx.net/xalium/ufovideo.htm
Interesting. Site is like, gone.
KA
These are older. Taken durign shuttle missions I believe. I believe they are part of the famous STS-48 (1991) and/or STS-75 ‘Tether Footage’ (1995) taken on a shuttle flight. Strange stuff. NASA wrote off the moving objects as among other things “ice crystals.”
http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/sting1946/critter.htm
OH. TESLA Cannon.
Or whatever they called it, dubbed it.
You know what is also strange?
The Russians lately want to bring weapons up to space.
The U.S. is like proclaiming that we need to get up there first. As if it’s like the Russians wanting to dominate over the U.S. for some reason.
I don’t blame the Russians. They probably want to have dominance up there for a reason before NASA+U.S. tries to hide things again.
I hope Russia gets up there
*runs*
That article rocks Bolton, and those videos also rock.
redneck_pf: best theory so far, IMO. I’d like to know a little more before I call the case closed for me. Where exactly would the particle of dust be to produce this? Not on the scanning bed, for sure. Y’mean they can’t seal the innards any better than that? My house has dust all over that you could grow potatoes in. I just brought a $119 printer-scanner home tonight; you mean I expect these artifacts on my scans in about a week? If not, maybe the pros should consider saving thousands on equipment costs.
How does the sculpted-out shape (crescent moon) fit in to this explanation?
BTW, all those people still clinging to the condensation bs only need to consider one thing: how about translucent epoxy droplet(s) instead? Explains the consistency and persistency across flights in different states. Won’t evaporate, either. Won’t go away, in fact, until someone discovers the flaws and cleans it off.
Here, for those who are calling this a water droplet still. Please go look for and argue over things like a UFO beaming up a Big Foot.
J/k Hehehe.
Those videos are so nice though.
KairoAnnunaki
As a citizen of Russia I should say that we want to dominate in space just as much as Americans do. It’s been for years, admit it. The roots of that armament race date back to the 60s with its Cold War. And it will always be like that because our countries are the main powers in that world. Either of them wants to dominate.
Everyone, why do you keep attempting to explain it? KairoAnnunaki’s figured it out. No one can explain it, so it’s some sort of craft. An orb craft. That can travel at high speeds. Probably that can teleport. Maybe from outer space. Because, you know, no one can prove that it isn’t.
You can’t argue with logic like that.
“You can’t argue with logic like that.”
Well, You certainly can’t.
looks like an aircraft enveloped in a pressure ‘barrier’ just as it is breaking the sound barrier
Just to add my two cents:
I would bet on an error introduced by the software merging the images.
Even though there is an argument listed in the “definitely not” list, this argument is not valid at all. I doubt that traditional stitching software is used to align the images. The software needs to take the bending of the earth surface into account - it has to do an image projection - check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection
This is the first place where an error could be introduced. The blurring of the sphere might just come from an color interpolation and the sphere form comes from the projection. The spots are aligned since the satelite or plane ( whatever take the images ) flies a straight line along the longitudes. If it would not follow longitudes, the image projection would be much harder job to do.
Next thing is: The map tiles as photographed by either a plane or satellite have exact position information in them. They are used to merge the tiles together and since the exact position of each tile is known to the stitching software, id does not need high contrast corners to overlap the images ( like panoramatools for digital cameras need ).
This is the next place where an error could be introduced: There is something with certain map coordinates where this process fails. This would also explain why the spots are aligned on a line ( since the corners are all aligned on longitude, see above ).
So I would say the best bet is a software error.
Finally a word about UFOs : Why on earth should ufos fly in a line? I would say this is as much likely as baloons flying in a line.
I forgot water condensation:
“Zoom out of the picture and this “condensationâ€?, gets smaller and smaller and smaller until you can’t see it. It should be the same size on the lens at all times.”
This would impose that the zoom level uses different images for every level like a plane that took high resolution images for the highest level and then flew again over the area to take lower resolution images??? Come on.
But it is not condension either since: It would even more regularly and unlikely in the same shape on very different locations. And ( maybe more convincing ) if one pays several 10000$ for a flight to take high resolution images - do you really believe that the company/organization allows a single drop sitting on the lens to distort the images? And not just a single one but a complete series? Rest assured that company dealing with this scale of optics are capable of dealing with condensation :-/
I just realized that I might have mixxed up latitude and longitude ( sorry for that, I am not a native english speaker ).