Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8984 total)
47 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,697 Year: 9,445/23,288 Month: 460/1,544 Week: 174/561 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the googlemap UFOs
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 1 of 43 (210145)
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


a neet new function of google is that it can now show you actual satelite maps along with regular driving direction maps. well, something of interest has been showing up some of these maps.

here's the one that started it all: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en

now, this is actually in my neck of the woods. i live less than hour from there. there's been about a dozen of these things found on maps around this area of florida, and another dozen in los angeles. interestingly, the "orbs" as they're being called are all evenly spaced, and tend to be in straight lines (vertically or horizontally in the image window) and right angles to each other.

i'll post my guess, and the logic behind it, if this thread gets interesting. but this board is full of skeptics and science-minded folk, as well as those who want to believe, so i'm interested to hear some thoughts and discussion.

[just for kicks, and integrity's sake, i will be playing devil's advocate against any guess, alien, governmental, atmospheric, or otherwise. including my own.]


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Meeb, posted 05-21-2005 10:40 AM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 3 by jar, posted 05-21-2005 12:27 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 05-21-2005 1:25 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 9 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-21-2005 4:05 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 05-21-2005 4:11 PM arachnophilia has responded
 Message 11 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-21-2005 4:20 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

  
Meeb
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 43 (210186)
05-21-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


Perhaps a drop of moist on the lens? Or maybe the lens has been damaged by some small objects?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:35 PM Meeb has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32664
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 3 of 43 (210214)
05-21-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


production artifact during processing.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:40 PM jar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 18332
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 4 of 43 (210230)
05-21-2005 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


Dare I say it? Weather balloon?


People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2005 2:15 PM ringo has not yet responded
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:32 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8933
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 5 of 43 (210235)
05-21-2005 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
05-21-2005 1:25 PM


Can't be weather ballon
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 05-21-2005 1:25 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 43 (210241)
05-21-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
05-21-2005 1:25 PM


probably not a weather balloon
Dare I say it? Weather balloon?

while the size looks about right for a weather balloon, they cast no discernable shadow, and are arranged in rather precise straight lines. so they're probably not in the air.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 05-21-2005 1:25 PM ringo has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 43 (210242)
05-21-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Meeb
05-21-2005 10:40 AM


Perhaps a drop of moist on the lens?

it looks like condensation to me. they have variable transparency, suggesting refractory issues. however, i'd need the lens specs before i jump on this one whole-heartedly.

most lenses won't even display things put on their front elements. especially if they are telephoto or normal length. although a wide of fisheye might.

it also might be on or in the housing.

Or maybe the lens has been damaged by some small objects?

doesn't look like damage to me.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Meeb, posted 05-21-2005 10:40 AM Meeb has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Meeb, posted 05-21-2005 7:47 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 43 (210243)
05-21-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
05-21-2005 12:27 PM


production artifact during processing.

someone dug up the source images, i think, and found them there too. i've heard a suggesting that they are marks for alignment and stitching purposes (or even thumbtacks!) but those don't see like the things they'd use. they're not uniform ENOUGH. they have different transparency, for instance.

and some of the processing writes over them partially. which may not mean anything depending on the addition process. but it suggests to me that they're in the source images.

they are also markedly different from google's intentional artifacts. see the capitol building in dc for instance.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 05-21-2005 12:27 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 1896 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 9 of 43 (210258)
05-21-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


Interesting...
It's brightest at the bottom left, and fades to sky blue in the top right, a direction which matches the shadows of the houses. That suggests it's a protrubance on one of the outer optics (otherwise it wouldn't catch the light, or be relecting open sky). Problem is, if it's a recticular dot it's a bloody big one (unless they have a huge resolution per frame - compare the dot to the size of the cars.)

Whilst and you wouldn't get condensation on/in a satellite (Water + vacuum = vacuum + a few molecules, in a couple of seconds), the images look suspiciously good to be real satellite images, So I'll plump for a drop of condensation on a 'plane.

Or maybe alien poo.

Edit: I really shouldn't go near keyboards early on Sunday.

This message has been edited by Dead Parrot, 05-22-2005 10:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 7:45 PM Dead Parrot has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 4459 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 10 of 43 (210261)
05-21-2005 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


Arachnophilia

there's been about a dozen of these things found on maps around this area of florida, and another dozen in los angeles. interestingly, the "orbs" as they're being called are all evenly spaced, and tend to be in straight lines (vertically or horizontally in the image window) and right angles to each other.

I would bet this is an insertion through photo processing{question here are these digital?}Notice that the half of the orb that is bright "bleeds" into the housing below which is consistent with alteration of the image,and the shadow edge is not consistent with the shadows on the grtound{look at large buildings}

You say they are evenly spaced tend to straight lines and are right angles to each other.Does that not seem too coincidental to you?

This message has been edited by sidelined, Sat, 2005-05-21 02:12 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 7:41 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Dead Parrot
Member (Idle past 1896 days)
Posts: 151
From: Wellington, NZ
Joined: 04-13-2005


Message 11 of 43 (210265)
05-21-2005 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by arachnophilia
05-21-2005 2:50 AM


Escher's Dallas
Talking of weird google maps, have you seen downtown Dallas recently?

More weirdness


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 2:50 AM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2005 6:55 PM Dead Parrot has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8933
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 12 of 43 (210299)
05-21-2005 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dead Parrot
05-21-2005 4:20 PM


Inconsistant images
http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/

Look at image Florida 7 referenced from this site, LA four, LA 7

Most 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-21-2005 4:20 PM Dead Parrot has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 05-21-2005 7:35 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 43 (210304)
05-21-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
05-21-2005 6:55 PM


Re: Inconsistant images
Look at image Florida 7 referenced from this site, LA four, LA 7

Most of them are partially or mostly transparent looking.

a bunch are halves or parts, but this isn't suprising. there's a lot of areas where one shot will overlap another and make something very similar looking. (like that seasons overlap)

it just means that it's in one shot, and not the one being overlapped.

Most of them are partially or mostly transparent looking.

i think the color (white and blue) is refraction.

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.

not sure. the watermark is overlayed as an alpha layer, and occurs on top of these things. if they're aligned, i suspect it's a coincidence.


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2005 6:55 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 14 of 43 (210305)
05-21-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by sidelined
05-21-2005 4:11 PM


I would bet this is an insertion through photo processing{question here are these digital?}Notice that the half of the orb that is bright "bleeds" into the housing below which is consistent with alteration of the image,

it's not the alteration that google does, though. the bleeding looks like a focus problem to me, which would be consistent either with something on the lens or in the air, but not a computer issue.

and the shadow edge is not consistent with the shadows on the grtound{look at large buildings}

shadow inconsistencies aren't generally a problem. (look at the dallas map) these are shot at different times of day, sometimes even different seasons. however, these all have the same distribution of light and dark, arranged the same way, suggesting it might not be in the air.

You say they are evenly spaced tend to straight lines and are right angles to each other.Does that not seem too coincidental to you?

yes, which is another reason i suspect they are not in the air.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by sidelined, posted 05-21-2005 4:11 PM sidelined has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 529 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 43 (210308)
05-21-2005 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dead Parrot
05-21-2005 4:05 PM


Re: Interesting...
Problem is, if it's a recticular dot it's a bloody big one (unless they have a huge resolution per frame - compare the dot to the size of the cars.)

they're about 3 or 4 times the size of my house. and the resolution *IS* huge. aerial film tends to not only be physically very large, but very very sharp and fine-grained too.

Whilst and you wouldn't get condensation on/in a satellite (Water + vacuum = vacuum + a few molecules, in a couple of seconds), the images look suspiciously good to be real satellite images, So I'll plump for a drop of condensation on a 'plane.

they were indeed shot from an airplane.

Edit: I really shouldn't go near keyboards early on Sunday

it's a saturday?


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dead Parrot, posted 05-21-2005 4:05 PM Dead Parrot has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020