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!
KairoAnnunaki by “Telsa Cannon” do you mean HAARP? High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu
Arne,
First, you have definitely never used stitching software ’cause you’re saying some lumpish things. So you say the software needs to take the bending of the earth surface into account? It has to do an image projection, right? Well I guess you know nothing about stitching. That kinda software can do things far more complicated than those you have mentioned. And if such things can be done by commercial software I wonder what can be done by specific professinal one used in that indusrty!
Man, how come you’re so full of words on the subject you don’t know. I hate when people like you do that.
And BTW you forgot to tell us your opinion on lenticular clouds theory. C’mon, lighten us up.
Shi Ju: Even in anonymous internet space, it would be nice if you watch your wording.
Actually, what I wanted to say is that the software does way more than the stitching software of some $100 panorama tool and that it is more likely that the software introduces these spots ( call it a bug ) than that they are UFOs, clouds, water condension, baloons or whatever.
Can someone explain to me why aliens would use saucer-shaped ships in the first place? This is so ludicrous. Some idiot back in the 50s coined the phrase ‘flying saucer’ and now we assume that saucer shaped ships are universally employed throughout the galaxy! What? Is there a “Crazy Mlknmrd’s Souped Up Saucer Shop” on every moon from here to Arcturus? It’s as if we’ve taken this idiotic concept of saucer shaped vehicles and super-imposed it on the entire universe. What physical advantae would a saucer shape have over, say, a cube, or an irregular polyhedron? It’s space, for crying out loud - it’s not like you need an aerodynamic shape. And what possible reason could they have for entering our atmosphere in the first freakin’ place! If we (the US) have satellites that can read the date off a dime from space then why would interstellar-flight capable beings need to waste time burning fuel through our polluted air?!? I swear - if aliens ever show up in saucer shaped ships I’ll print off every page of the internet and eat it. Now, can we discuss something a little more relevant - like the Science of Star Wars!
There appears to be a shadow on this one:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
There’s an oblong dark area on the image to the upper left of the object. The direction matches the direction of other shadows and the shape approximately matches the shape of the object. Just eye-balling it, I’d say the shadow (if that’s what it is) is about 3-4 times the length of the shadow of the tallest object on the ground (some sort of tower). That would indicate that the altitude of the object is roughly 3-4 times the height of the tower. All that’s needed, then, is the height of the tower to determine the altitude of the object.
However, unless the tower is extremely tall, the altitude of the object is small compared to that of the camera (which is cited elsewhere as 17,500 ft). If that’s the case (strating to accumulate a lot of “if”s here), then the object is quite large. One object I can find (also in Florida) that’s of comparable shape and size (on the images, at least) is Epcot’s Spaceship Earth:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
…which is about 160 ft in diameter. Note that it also shows up on the image as oblong, even though it’s a sphere.
Gary-O
electrostatic lift ( gravitational propulsion system)
Better access and amplify a gravitational field using the “focal point”
It has nothing to do with “Some idiot back in the 50s coined the phrase ‘flying saucer’ ”
Its just Aerodynamics & Physics 101
Hey,
Maybe I found something interesting about these ufos, I made an image for this:
http://img169.echo.cx/img169/2920/ufo55bg.jpg
At0miC
Here is an example of how Google Maps stich together the various images:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
A lot of vids on the internet show some UFOs flying in pairs. You may find some here - http://www.ufodigest.com/video.html
So I assume what we have here is a pair of UFOs being captured from shot to shot while flying from east to west or vice versa. Just like we normally see here planes taking off and landing near airports.
That would explain lots of things like their total number and their flying pattern.
There is an excellent example of my words. Watch the following video and check out there two UFOs ‘cruising’ in the sky. I imagine that if at that moment Google’s satellite (of course I mean the image provider’s satellite) had been taking pictures the resulted pictures would definitely look like the ones we see in LA and FL.
I’m talking about this vid
http://www.ufodigest.com/mediaplayer.cfm?medialink=http://www.ufodigest.com/video/11UFOs.WMV&mediatitle=11_UFOs
Atomic…GREAT CATCH!!! I noticed the very same thing on that one over the highway…I thought it was a line on the road.
All I can say to the dust/artifact theory is that while it makes some sense, they have software and processes to deal with this and minimize these problems. I have seen some examples of this problem and they look different but still it could be an artifact introduced in the scanning process.
If so though, they have some pretty poor quality assurance being done on these pictures because these are some real big botch ups from a photographic sense; but aside from an aircraft of some type, either terrestrial or non, I think the artifact theory is much better than the stupid droplet on the camera argument.
At0mic: VERY interesting. Lends credence to the epoxy theory doesn’t, it? Good work.
I think its the evil potato lord Ictixtlatl’s air biscuit delivery moose. Or maybe a bloated cornmonkey?
That would be a Grizzly Moose… get it right.
Come on! Every knows that the evil potato lord Ictixtlatl sacked his entire air biscuit delivery service for eating their cargo, for thivery, dereliction of duty and for conduct unbecoming Moose air biscuit delivery cadets. Man you need to stay up on the latest developments.
Probably a reflection of the sun off the nearby ocean causing an internal reflection on one of the camera’s lens elements..
Hmm…8 around Florida. I think all of the old folks are up to something. Anyone remember the movie Cocoon? Aliens and old folks.
At0mic’s discovery is one of the most important observations here. I saw that line too and assumed it was on the ground as well. It’s struck me as odd that it crossed the entire freeway as a unit, but not odd enough to attach it to the round object.
I’m kind of surprised that it doesn’t show up in more of the photos, assuming now it’s one defect on one piece of equipment that the company used for maybe two flights. The lighting and background appear similar in several other pictures but I don’t see it, despite how prominently it appears in the one. Also the variations in brightness… I know, incident light and all that.
The ‘evidence of high-order nonhuman intelligence’ explanation must now join balloons and clouds in the dumpster, IMO. Unless the scenario described by Goomerator above holds true.
lens defect, dust in the scanner… I know these processes aren’t perfect and people make mistakes and a glass that’s 99.999% full is better than 0%…
This is the worst defect I’ve ever seen in an aerial photo, by far. I’m trying to be tolerant and forgiving but this is the sort of thing that casts a pall over the product that this company puts out. Interesting also that no one has reported hearing back from them yet. That’s pretty lame. I’m sure glad this service is free - to me, at least. If I’d paid for these photos, I’d want them retaken at no cost. Or rescanned, whatever.
And if Google plans on charging for this eventually (do they?) I’ll not be a subscriber. Most of the addresses I’ve checked are off by a half a block or more. It’s cool, but photos without defect and correct addresses are available at other free locations.
After seeing http://netpat.club.fr/video/sts80-1.mpeg and then the lines that were outlined in the photos. Were you implying that because of those lines that is part of what the “orb” or “waterdroplet” could have came from? Most likely to me, that would only say that those lines themselves are what a dust particle etc would be.
And the American government did state that they should be the first to dominate space with weapons.
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
There’s a big white defect line also right there. There’s a bunch everywhere if you really look, but there’s no “UFO” things to go along with it.
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Well, it is a free service, and I don’t think Google has charged for anything yet (I could be completely wrong there), and for the most part it’s really cool. On the other hand, I have paid for several versions of Windows, for example, which is anything but perfect, or even particularly reliable. Let alone well designed or intuitive or competent.
Anyway, the only thing that still bothers me is the partial Google “watermark” on some of the spots. Why would it appear only on and very close to the spot, even when the background should allow the rest of the mark to show up if it were applied to an image that already had the spot. It really looks like a spot containing part of the mark was pasted onto the image. Just doesn’t add up.
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
I guess that’s a road in the lake?
Well. As far as the google watermark text’s of “Google 2005″, that’s all most likely overlayed in a screened manner automatically, thus appearing very bright on grey roads and the tops of grey buildings and very bright areas such as:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Orb was white, the text happen to hit one on it’s overlay of the text. Would explain why it seems super imposed.
The presence of two extraneous lines in matching orientation in two different photos suggests very strongly that hey are ‘attached’ to the round, at least in the abstract sense. They’re part of the same phenomena. It does look like what I’d expect lint to look like on a scanner and it’s attached to the object. That’s stretching coincidence. Failing another unseen organizing priniciple (such as Goomerator’s replication-of-the-UFO-to-make-it-look-like-artifact theory) I’m forced to conclude the object is artifact as well. While it may seem presumptuous to say that the lint doesn’t look like any UFOs I’ve seen - it doesn’t.
Yes, the US has some pretty wild ideas… but space domination doesn’t start at 17.500 feet.
You know what. If you keep deleting my points I’m just going to say fuck this. It’s a UFO, that’s it. There’s lines and marks all over the place.
The text is super imposed on white bright objects.
Good game.
Point well taken about Windows. Same could be said of most things. I guess I’m thinking about how simple this process is compared to designing and maintaining an operating system. But then I think about Bic lighters….
Which picture has the most suspicious watermark? I’d like to check it out closer.
Kairo, you getting messed with?
HEY - About the Google watermark, can you people not see that the damn watermark is all over every image in their map database? It is only because of the contrast that it is noticeable on the areas in question. Geessh, get a better monitor, folks, and stop worrying over the damn copyright!
Take a close look at this one, Concerned, maybe with your glasses on. Didn’t go to kindergarten and learn any manners, eh?
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
In case the link doesn’t work, it’s number two up there in the list of ones over LA. There are others. I badmouthed Windows, so now I’m having trouble with my computer. Sensitive things!
Goom, zoom out to a scale of five (from the top) and look at the mountains. It’s still there, dipshit.
YO - Concerned Citizen - we’re talking about instances where the watermark (which is always lighter than that which it overlays) appears on the lighter object but not on the darker background. Now, what’s that simplistic argument about contrast again? Fool.
This is number twelve of the thirteen linked as “over LA.”
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Numbers five, seven, and nine also show partial watermarks. And yes, I know there are other partial marks to be seen “all over the place.” Sheesh!
Citizen may be right, through no fault of innate intelligence. The watermark is applied in a separate layer, citizen. That’s why it always appears the same size at any zoom. Gets put in different places. If you’d known what you were talking about, you’d have said the watermark is NOT there when you zoom out, an observation that couldn’t possibly be made zooming out 5 levels.
I zoomed out one layer and compared captures at the same magnification. The watermark is NOT there on the zoomed out version, ruling out SIMPLE copy and paste.
Move along citizen, there’s nothing for you to see here.
Hey, if you zoom out one click, you can still see signs of the watermark on the dot, but it has shrunk with the dot. Now look at the other marks. I hadn’t noticed before, but the watermarks are always the same size, regardless of the zoom. It appears that this dot was cut from somewhere and pasted on the image, which would mean that the partial watermark would not “behave” like the normal ones. Thanks for the tip, Concerned! Even random fools are sometimes helpful, in spite of their best efforts.
Goom, x-post. I didn’t see it with my captures. What am I missing?