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!
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: View Placemark
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:
View Placemark
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: View Placemark View Placemark 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: View Placemark
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?
to the ufo zealots..you guys want so bad for all this to be real you’ll continue to debate even whe the truth bashes you on your tin foil beanies. your fanaticism is akin to what i’ve seen in fundamentalist religions
Goom, I gotta tell you, you were axed by your IT dept. Look upthread. Highly recommend you not indulge in this at work, eh? I support you fully, of course, but THEY don’t.
Hi crazy horse, there are fanatics at both ends of the scale. I think the majority of people lay somewhere betwixt. I feel it is important to look at and question all aspects for and against such phenomena. Who knows, by doing so the truth may one day be revealed.
Regards Azimuth.
The site was experiencing problems (a little rewiring perhaps) today for sure; I couldn’t get it to come up either and the admin said there was problems but still…
>>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?
Yeah, but it seems counterproductive. If the (piece of) watermark is separate, why apply it at the full zoom and call attention to it? And, if you have the original w/o watermark, why apply a part of a watermark at all?
“Who knows, by doing so the truth may one day be revealed.”
That’s what I’m saying.
If you keep calling everything a hoax or fake, then what good is there to try and reach such encounters or advance to other things besides being an office junkie who sits at the desk knowing that he is that, and that’s all he’s going to be and he came from an ape, he’ll die an ape believing what’s in front of his own two eyes and what makes the most sense because evidence proved it because there’s no other evidence yet that can disprove it because no one keeps seeking other explainations. Someone tells you the world is flat and some other person says it’s round so they mock it and laugh.
If -everyone- like certain-s, on this planet didn’t -want- it to be a UFO, then of course we probably won’t even have any chance of finding other life out there. Or prove where we really came from besides two rocks smashing together or evolving from a cell or being created by the “hands of God”. No one would seek it.
Well, too bad. They seek it. Seems we are on our way to having a maned Mars mission because people seek it.
And you have to consider the possiblities of facts and truths being hidden from the plublic.
There is most likely 100% evidence that alien crafts just sit there in the sky and watch us while we drive in our cars observing us like ants.
It’s most likely a real case scenario of the X-Files.
o/’ Everybody’s going to the party have a real goooood time. Dancin’ in the desert blowin’ up the sunshine. Blast off. It’s party time. And we don’t live in a fascist nation. Blase off, it’s party time. And where the fuck are you.
Marching forward hypocritic and hypnotic computers. You depend on our protection,
Yet you feed us lies from the table cloth. o/’
Um, this is a little weird! All sorts of interesting things here. I haven’t tried making my own link, but here goes. I was just cruising around over the LA area, as far as I know. Seems somebody has left lots of little goodies lying around!
View Placemark
Now that… is interesting.
Here is another blimp or something, not too far away.
View Placemark
The blimp is not interesting.
But that target is.
See.
View Placemark
Now you could say that was the sphere, by a software or camera glitch.
You see how easy that is to say that?
The governments always say shit like that. And then they get proved wrong all the time, then they change their stories just like this:
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index697.htm
That’s why I tend to disagree with it.
Yup. That there is a System Artifact. 🙂
How in the hell do you run into a target like that.
Because that seems like you are tied in with working with google, and you all just added that shit, you happen to run into it. O_o
Matter of fact, the fact of the messageboards acting up and the server being “slow”.
Because everyone was complaing about that 3 or so whatever hours ago.
Aw, I’m busted! Thassright, I’m a Man In Black. You win the all-expense paid weekend for two in Emmett, Kansas.
Actually, I did just happen onto it, while looking for more of those blue blobs. That whole area seems more colorful than most, too. Sure wish they had resolution like that for my ‘hood. I could tell if my dog was outside when they took the picture, unless of course my yard was hidden by a fuzzy spherical looking thing, maybe with Goog written on it.
For the record, I have no connection to Google or anything like that. I’m just a guy who has spent waaaaay too much time looking at this stuff in the past few days. I am thinking some kind of explanation from Google or someone is long overdue, too, unless they dreamed this up or they are just milking it.
“I haven’t tried making my own link, but here goes.”
“Aw, I’m busted! Thassright, I’m a Man In Black.”
“For the record, I have no connection to Google or anything like that.”
You sound so obvious too.
Whatever. You all want to play games, that’s fine and dandy.
So you captured some shit and now the CIA or some shit is telling you to play some mind games.
Whatever.
Go right ahead. 😛 Chow.
G’night. I gotta git to bed. I thought I saw a car moving on one of them freeways just a minute ago!
The target appears to be in Compton. A rather obvious thing, isn’t it? I have to agree with you about all the games. Somebody havin’ a good laugh.
Damn Vogons, anyway!
here’s the real thing. http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/1097899fig8.jpg http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/highres/1097899fig1.jpg
now, can someone point to me here in googlemaps the location of S4 (site 4) ? The thing is, They towed my spacecraft that was malfunctioning. My search point to S4 near area 51. I need to get it back.
wow, this thread is ADDICTIVE.. I just happened onto it while searching for something totally unrelated.. and that was 7 HOURS AGO! I, too, was trying to find another blue orb for you guys, but I couldn’t. HOWEVER, I did find some more targets.. these are in the Alaska area, and if you follow the resolution border both up and down, you will see some very strange things. hope this helps in narrowing down what they are, as what you’re about to see are DEF-initely NOT water drops.. my guess is they are markers added to the aerial photos for stitching.
View Placemark
View Placemark
View Placemark
and this last one is REALLY strange:
View Placemark
I expanded Knostalgic’s blob to try to see the tree pattern he refers to, but I still can’t find it. Here’s what the expanded picture looks like.
http://home.supernet.com/~jacksmountain/images/142%20&%20736%20expanded.jpg
Examination of the expanded picture shows that the color resolution of the blob is much finer than that of the surrounding areas. This suggests that the blob has been pasted onto the background, because if it were a real object it would have a similar color resolution as the background.
ASMODEUS718>> wow, this thread is ADDICTIVE…
The first one is free!
mountain jack: can you expound on the color resolution thing? When I first looked at it, it looked as though the pixel (spatial) resolution was different but I think that’s an optical illusion.
Goomerator: I’m not sure you got my cryptic comment earlier… maybe you did but, if you didn’t, I think it’s pretty important that you do – more important than the topic of this board. I know why you couldn’t get on the site yesterday.
Azimuth:
I think the photo you took is more interesting, by far, than anything I’ve seen on Google maps.
The first time when I looked at mountain jack’s image, I thought the same thing. But when I took a closer look with more zoom in PSP, I saw the pixels have just the same size, the pixels of the ufo looks much finer because the colours if the ufo are like the same. The pixels of the background looks bigger because there are many different colours. Just try a close up of 300 to 600% and see yourself.