|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the googlemap UFOs | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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: Google Maps 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.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
There is a possibillity that it could be a small dent on the lens. The huge zoom lens on the satellite would blur the dent when shooting long distance shots you mean telephoto. but yes, it would blur it. however, it would blur it considerably more than that. let me run through my logic. on a 35mm camera, something on the lens's front element generally doesn't appear at all. the depth of field and focusing abilities don't let it. no lense can focus on its own front element, and very, very few lens will focus close enough to allow their depths of field to clearly resolve something on the lens. now, aerial film is much, much bigger. i can't find the actual size, because i don't know what aerialsexpress (for google) uses. but the larger the format size, the longer the lens's focal length needs to be for the lens to be "normal." the longer the focal length, the less depth of field. so generally, the larger the film format, the less range of things the lense can focus on at once. so basically, for this to be ON the lens, it the dof of the lens would have to be just short of 17,500 ft (the distance from the plane to the ground, which is in focus). the further away from the lens, the less figure goes for the object to resolve. a knick or a scratch might cause an area to de-focus slightly. a chunk missing would make a blur. none of those options would create regular circles. but a water droplet inside the housing of the plane -- in front of the lens -- might. however, several dots are distorted, which suggests the panning of the camera, and correction. not sure how the distortion would play out on the lens vs in the hull, vs on the film, though. i think they would essentially be the same.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But how could that end up on a grid or straight line? the shots are taken at set distance intervals. when the results are distortion-corrected, and stitched together, they'd naturally make a grid as an artifact of the process that put the shots together. not being complete is not a problem. different planes shoot different picture at different times. it just means the ones with the dots were all the same camera on the same occasion. This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-21-2005 08:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
thanks for the info.
just pointing out that the grid is more likely an artifact of the process that made these, and not a coincidence or coordination of alien spacecraft or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i dunno if they're on even coordinates. i think they're like 33/80 with lots of bad decimal places. so i doubt they're gps markers. i also don't think they've been added in post. the distortion of one of the other points and the transparency of another seem to indicate it's on the film.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yeah, i posted this originally because no answer clearly came to mind. there doesn't really seem to BE a clear answer.
sort a fun little excercise for the scientific minds here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
yes. for instance, the size of the film format and focal length of the lens of would be nice, along with f/stop (aperture) commonly used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
It looks like you are beginning to think they may in fact be UFO's Ned. Am I right? well, they are unidentified. and objects. and they're probably flying. that would make them ufo's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Looking at each image, some are "covered" by vegetation. that's a transparency issue, i think:
The difference in coloration seems to be due to the underlying photo. they do seem to be distorting the light reflected by the subject matter (or the image thereof). this would be consistent, really, with either something between the ground and the lens, or a post-production artifact.
I think these must be left over from some sort of place holders that were in place before the pictures were put into the grid. i'm still going with water-droplets in the transparent housing. some are stretched out of circular shapes, which suggests they were there BEFORE processing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024