the googlemap UFOs

You have to dig up all the facts at hand. There isn't just one of these and they have appeared on a grid like pattern.It seems to me it has to be an artifact of some kind (because of the grid pattern). Either in the original image capture or processing after that.

UFO Updates Google SightseeingLook at image Florida 7 referenced from this site, LA four, LA 7Most of them are partially or mostly transparent looking.They seem to be associated in some cases with the google water mark. Even those that are not look like they might be aligned with the water mark grid.My hypothosis is, for the moment, that they are mistakes in putting the watermarks in. Though with digital processing I don't see how that could be.

But how could that end up on a grid or straight line?

We will have to wait for those who produced the pictures to supply some of the details that you smart folk here have conjectured about. We've run out of data to work from for now.

Thank you for the link.Of course, there is not actual "info" on the googlemap UFO's at all.What is there is an example of how not to deal with the data.The one image is shown. It is perhaps the sharpest and clearest of all. When others are examined the suggestion that the "whatzit" is vibrating seems to be unwarrented. The grid like placement is not considered as well.No hint is given as to how they reached the conclusions that they are implying from the very, very limited information at hand.

florida spot | See url below for details. www.googlesightsee | Flickr for all 8 florida imagesand
Florida Spheres S0-S7 | Relative Positions of Florida Sphere | Flickr
for their locations on a gridI think the centering is just a deliberate positioning of the google map.

I think that it is important to not look at just a selected image.When all of them are examined( see first link of my post before this one) it starts to look to me like "artifact" is the answer. Artifact of what is unknown.

Two things bother me:1) Such sloppiness seems to be rather unprofessional on the processors of the pictures.2) Why haven't we heard from them about what these are? Perhaps the usual annoying habit of media (and the web) to ignore the prosaic truth?