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!
Er, that’s number twelve, not thirteen.
I see the other dots with watermarks don’t behave the way I think the one in question does. I went back and looked at it again, and I can’t say I see the mark, but it looks like the shape of the shading is effected by the mark. Very flimsy “evidence” to be sure. By the way, I have a brand new monitor and 20/15 vision. How about you, Concerned?
Goom’s recent posts are “awaiting moderation.” Maybe somebody has to do some looking at dots before they can be released. Goom is tired of all the childishness here. Thanks, Concerned! Goom will return later.
Goom, zoom out to a scale of five (from the top) and look at the mountains. It’s still there, dipshit.
Goom, zoom out to a scale of five (from the top) and look at the mountains. It’s still there, dipshit.
Alright. Hopefully this won’t get deleted this time. (Yeah I believe so).
If this was a camera glitch, most likely it would show up all the time LIKE THIS. This drastic. Not like personal photo’s of silver orbs in the sky. But this.
There is evidence to back this up being a U.F.O. (I’m not classifying it as alien or government, just a UFO). The evidence are NASA video tapes, and personal encounters. What I mean by personal encounters is, you have to be there yourself to see it.
Obviously if it is an alien THING, it will most likely have its ways of not being detected by what they feel/know they won’t be detected with. That leaked, if leaked, NASA video got that straight.
I was thinking of doing an experiment with a baloon. Buying a big one, and getting some silver spray paint and spray it all silver and let it go in my backyard (Sorta be funny lol if it got on the news). And taking a shit load of pictures to see if it would match up to all these photos. It most likely will.
If you drop these images into a simple program like PaintShop and really zoom in, you can actually make out the square border lines around the cut and paste in most of them. Some are more crudely put together than others. A little transparency and airbrush here and there, and you have something that resembles a UFO if you don’t look too closely. That white line pointed out by At0mic looks like an accidental paintbrush streak, perhaps while trying to touch up the watermark.
I stand by my original post. Propaganda for “War of the Worlds” movie that comes out next month. Has anybody done any research into who originally “found” these pictures?
You are just focusing on THOSE white lines!
There’s many MANY more if you go miles out in the map.
Go look, but you’re going to be ignorant about it anyway.
There are many more white disfigured lines besides the one’s by the baloons, go out past them and you shall find more!
I find it interesting that no one has heard from Google or their agents concerning the inquiries mentioned here. That seems somewhat telling. Has anyone yet gotten a response of note?
Did anyone mention weather balloon yet? LOL Nice catch…
peace,
core
Haha, thanks Goomerator and Deepthroat.
“You don’t understand what we mean, you are an idiot… No, wait, you’re right!”
Typical.
Typical of what? ‘Typical’ is someone coming on here with no idea of what’s going on and dropping a useless post with an attiude. Takes up space.
You still may not understand what we’re talking about. What you’re being thanked for is suggesting (indirectly) that different zooms be compared. NOT in the way you did it, but in a meaningful way.
I will add that you’re probably not a fool so I apologize for saying so. You’ll hopefully understand that it doesn’t take long to get worn down by posters who dismiss whatever with a wave of the hand - regardless of whether or not they’ve followed the topic or have anything sensible to say. I *think* I understand where you’re coming from and I *think* you need to elevate a notch. Not everyone on the board is a moron. Probably neither are you, but underestimating the quality of the argument you’ve disdained is a great way to look like one.
Well put, DC. Goom looked at all the dots again, and tried to point out what he found. It was not what he initially thought, but still interesting in other ways. I know this is too subtle for some here, but there is monkey business involved at some level. I doubt you will ever have enough information to solve it, but some ppl have a lot of time to spend on it. BTW, Goom does not think there are any space ships involved. Unlike some here, he has enough sense not to post his opinions as established fact. Goom is now at work, and he probably would be wasting his time trying to post anyhow. I have little interest in all this cloak and dagger stuff, but I wish you all luck. Over and out.
Kairo:
>>Go look, but you’re going to be ignorant about it anyway.
I’m not really interested in what *other* white lines there are that look like the two in question, so I guess ‘ignorant’ is an apt description. The fact that two photos can be compared side by side and it is obvious that three elements have identical geometry AND two of those elements look like artifact lead me to conclude the third is artifact as well. To push back the frontiers of ignorance, perhaps you could map all the white lines you find in both of those photos and see if their geometry is consistent with the other 3 anomalies.
oops! Thanks for the info, someguy. Not everyone here is crazy or stupid, some just like a good mystery and maybe get entangled a little too much. Me, too. I certainly implore you not to drop the hammer as (s)he might actually be one of your choice… ahh, resource.
I am looking at Goomerator’s last link:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
The one where the copyright overlay is only present above the sphere. Supposedly, the text is still visible when you zoom out one click, but, I don’t see it either (even after using Lens to magnify my screen).
Further, there are several other cases of the same phenomenon of the text. Still at maximum zoom, look just below and to the left at the large grey expanse just below the road. A dark grey-green patch is obscuring the “5″ in the copyright message.
Zoom out two clicks, and follow the highway to right to where there’s what appears to be a large wooded area to the south. The dark tree area obscures the entire of “(c) 2005″ in the text above it. I imagine that the text is not an alpha layer, but more likely one of the frutier blends such as multiply (Photoshop has a whole stack of them that do things like this).
That said, there is enough light area around the sphere where I would expect to see bits of the writing, so there is still something suspiciously cut-and-paste about that sphere.
Then again, in at0mic’s image:
http://img169.echo.cx/img169/2920/ufo55bg.jpg
The dark one looks scarily like a default button in Aqua (Mac OS X) — default buttons in dialogs on a Mac look like pulsating blue sweets which during the dark end of the animation look like that. Exactly like that, if you made a button so narrow you only had the rounded end-caps. The spheres to me took so very much like Google playing about with Photoshop — 30-second Photoshop effects liberally sprinkled on the image for fun. After all, they do like space jokes
[PS if this double-posts, something is playing up, I'm getting "The document contains no data" on submit]
Hi all, this is the second post I have made here on this topic, my first one a couple of days ago has vanished. I viewed the satellite images in question on the Rense site. On the 8 Jan this year I had a similar anomaly appear in one of several images of a CT I had photographed. I forwarded it to Rense.com the day after but it was never published.
When I viewed the satellite images I was so taken with the similarities with the anomalies between the satellite and my image that I felt compelled to reforward it to Rense and it can be viewed here.
http://rense.com/general65/sim.htm
It can also be viewed here along with some discussion:
https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?t=242
I think you will find the similarities striking, you be the judge.
Regards from New Zealand
Azimuth
Sorry all for messages disappearing or being posted multiple times - the server has been acting up the last few hours.
Hopefully it’s all working now though.
James,
No problems, I didn’t think there was any reason other than a technical glitch as to why my post of two days ago disappeared.
Thanks for the info.
Regards
Azimuth
Unless I missed it, no one has commented on the anomalies over Los Angeles being directly above or not far from the newest stretch of the 210 Freeway (tail edge of LA County, mostly in San Bernardino County). I live in the pretty immediate vicinity of most of the photos. The 210 runs through new housing and business areas. Lots of power stations, lots of military goodies dotting the hills. Fake microwave-trees all over the place. Wireless is being built into neighborhoods and business parks — no underground wiring needed. I find the Wired Magazine suggestion — stationery wireless balloons — more plausible than most things. If there is experimentation with relay balloons somewhere, this is a very logical location for it. I’ve written novels (reasonably well researched) about UFOs in southern California and about ELF and other waveform (govt and privat company) shennanigans that are common place here (and elsewhere) and while I make mincemeat of the facts for fictional purposes, these map anomalies don’t seem terribly anomalous to me. I wouldn’t presume to claim to know exactly what they are — I’d love to know — but I do think the location is important here. Now excuse me. I have to go readjust my aluminum foil beanie.
Interesting thread here : I just wasted an hour of work time on this so for that I say thankyou/
IN reference to this link:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
If you look (very carefully) at the line of trees that seem to cut through the bottom of the circular anomaly you can see that about 1 inch apart , depending on your monitor size, there is a clearly repeated pattern from left to right. This image has been doctored using photoshops cloning, or rubber stamp tool. Notice a lighter green colored shape that looks like this :
>-
why was my comment truncated ?????
\I’ll repost later, i have to go
Our UFO’s have tails! Great catch At0miC!
I went back to seamless.usgs.gov to download some slightly higher resolution shots and posted my results over at flickr.
The first image shows the “tails” much more clearly.
For the second I first traced the tails as closely as I could. Then I traced the little angled pieces shown best on the image over the lake. With the higher res images, I soon noticed that all four views At0mic posted have these pieces on the lower left quadrant.
Then I lined them all up using the edge of the tail nearest the orbs. You can see the result in the lower left corner of the second image. As you can see they line up real good. Too good to be random. Whatever it is it’s the same in all of the photos.
Additionally, I hope these images settle the watermark questions. These aerials were shot and being used long before google got their hands on them.
One more thing…I still haven’t recieved a response from Aerials Express, and I have a feeling that if, as mentioned up-thread, these are defects in their aerials that they probably wouldn’t be too eager to talk about it. I did notice a contact number for USGS in the meta data for the LA images though, and I’ll see if I can get anybody there to help us out. They gotta have tons of techs there that do nothing but stare at these things all day long. Unfortunately that will have to wait till Monday.
OH MY GOD. KNOSTALGIC IS RIGHT.
THERE’S ALSO ONE ABOVE IT AND IN THE RIGHT AND LEFT.
IT IS FAKE!
The more I look at ‘em, the more they look doctored. Could be my imagination, but then I still haven’t seen a reasonable explanation of why all those partial watermarks only appear within the fuzzy edges of the dots. Forget anything to do with zooming, just think about why we can’t see the rest of the copyright mark. It still does not compute.
Azimuth, more intellegent discussion over there. I’ll be reading from there now. Thanks man.
It is interesting that the 3 blobs found by Atomic that have a curly tail to the left are in sequence above the Foothill freeway, almost exactly 2.75 miles apart, and in a straight line give or take a couple of hundred feet.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.138,-117.652&spn=0.007725,0.009441&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.138,-117.604&spn=0.007725,0.009441&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=34.138,-117.556&spn=0.007725,0.009441&t=k&hl=en
It sure looks like whatever put those blobs on these photos did the same thing 3 times, including the curly pigtail. BTW, the pigtail looks like what happens when there is dust on my scanner, or a scratch in the glass bed. But the bolb is different. Dust on the scanner bed doesn’t produce blurry, shadowed blobs that are translucent.
These things have got to be artifacts of either the camera or the software. Another reason they can’t be real is the shadowing. For example, the 18 wheeler on the freeway just to the left of the blob at -117.604 is lit from the bottom with its shadow on the top side. The adjacent blob, however, is lit from the top with the darker side towards the bottom. In fact, all the blobs are lit either from the bottom or the top of the picture, or both. The houses and streets in the picture, however, are lit from above. More evidence that these blobs are artifacts and not a real part of the picture.
Have a look at these two:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
There’s a squiggle in the middle of each image. It’s easier to see the
first one but they appear to be the same shape. They’re also at the
same offset from the sphere. Looks like there’s dirt and/or styrofoam
beads in the optical mechanism.
This one has the same mark at the same offset but it’s rotated
slightly:
Placemark: Google Maps / Google Earth
I think somebody is having a big laugh about now, thinking about how many thousand people around the world are staring at their little blue and white dots! Agents of mass deception? I doubt it. People who think they are terribly clever? There’s a safe bet.
Goomerator, glad you’re back. That was a little big-brother-ish.
I think Telcontar has a point. The watermark is applied to areas that are already light and fades off as the intensity of the background goes down. It seems awfully severe on the object, though. I’ll see if I can find similar examples amongst normal stuff.
Welcome NZ person. Your message board over there does seem to have less clutter than here.
Finally, I don’t see what Knostalgic is seeing… more details when you get a chance.
whoa, I am thinking UPO rather than UFO - say, Unidentified Photographed Object. can’t be sure that it is “flying” but you can be sure that it was photographed. or Unidentified Photoshopped Object if there is some trickery afoot.
KairoAnnunaki, you’re welcome. It does seem rather strange that these anomalies are popping up all over the world though! Obviously some may be doctored, some staged, some are digital camera motes or artifacts, dust, pollen, insects and the odd proverbial “weather balloon.”
My opinion as to whether or not these satellite images have been doctored is reserved. Surely there are experts in this field who can determine if the images have been digitally tampered with.
However many impeccable images and independently corroborated witness sightings of such phenomena remain unexplainable, what “they�are…….. who knows!! Determining what they are not would be a good start though.
[color=blue][size=20]^A^===============[/size][/color]
Hey, DtCh, glad to be back. Yeah, that was a bit weird. For several hours there, I couldn’t get the site to even come up at all. Who knows, computers don’t like me much to begin with, so it could well have been on my end. The site _was_ acting a bit too weird for a while.
I haven’t been able to figure out what Knostalgic is seeing, either. Guess now I know how everyone else feels about my observations on that other dot. Wish I knew how to run Photoshop, because I have access to it, at least theoretically. The only time I messed with it was years ago, and I felt like I was trying to fly a 747 or something.
Could part of a watermark layer get copied and pasted along with the dot, and still _only_ apply to one level of zoom in its new home? I haven’t a clue, but I don’t recall ever meeting a coincidence I would trust farther than I could throw it.
Knostalgic’s right. Someone’s been cloning around. Good show! Azimuth is also right: can’t assume they’re all fakes or photo anomalies because some are. So. . . speaking of mostly fake, anybody spot any crop circles yet?