UFO Updates
Wednesday, 18th May 2005 by James Turnbull
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 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!
View Placemark
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.
View Placemark
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.
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: View Placemark View Placemark View Placemark View Placemark
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.