Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   the googlemap UFOs
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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: 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.]

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

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

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 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 replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 43 (210312)
05-21-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Meeb
05-21-2005 7:47 PM


from the resident photogeek.
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Meeb, posted 05-21-2005 7:47 PM Meeb has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 43 (210314)
05-21-2005 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by NosyNed
05-21-2005 8:17 PM


Re: on a grid
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

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by NosyNed, posted 05-21-2005 8:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:21 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 22 of 43 (210322)
05-21-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
05-21-2005 10:21 PM


Re: on a grid
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:21 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:38 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 43 (210326)
05-21-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
05-21-2005 10:38 PM


Re: on a grid
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:54 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 26 of 43 (210330)
05-21-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
05-21-2005 10:54 PM


Re: on a grid
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 05-21-2005 10:54 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2005 1:09 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 28 of 43 (210340)
05-22-2005 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by NosyNed
05-22-2005 1:09 AM


Re: Getting an answer
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2005 1:09 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 42 of 43 (214593)
06-06-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Limbo
05-24-2005 9:44 PM


Re: Using all the images.
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Limbo, posted 05-24-2005 9:44 PM Limbo has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 43 of 43 (214594)
06-06-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by gnojek
06-05-2005 11:24 PM


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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by gnojek, posted 06-05-2005 11:24 PM gnojek has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024