UFO's in Google Maps!!!

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/12/ufo/

[Temp3st]

looks like a 'spiritual orb' to me.
Better get Mayday in to authenticate the picture ;)

[Nucular]

Escaped helium balloon? Hot air balloon? Advertising blimp thing? Very tall bald man?

[LW]

My guess is a weather balloon.

During my 1/2-year stay in a coastal weather station, I released close to 50 of the beasts to sky. They were the same color as the object in the photo.

A properly stored and filled weather balloon can reach the height of over 30 km, but out balloons usually bursted at a little over 20 km. (Which was more than enough since we actually needed data up to 2 km since we were preparing artillery weather reports for short range shooting).

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I will tell you what it is, or real.

It is an UFO.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Now, seriously, it is an interesting picture. I would guess a high altitude balloon, but I dont know how they are, their shape nor anything.

Oh, whats the point? it could be anything. :(

[Nucular]

I've only had a little while to have a look at the discussion going on on the actual site, but a couple of interesting things leap out.

One guy saysjher Says:

May 12th, 2005 at 7:17 am
They’re all in alignment with each other. I’d bet they’re alignment points for the map data.

If you zoom out to the 3rd level and scroll left/right and up/down in a straight line, they form a grid.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.189370&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748705,-80.074496&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.901956,-80.245299&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.901956,-80.357441&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=27.002410,-80.243819&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.902256,-80.076728&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.902760,-80.302366&spn=0.008122,0.014956&t=k&hl=en

Note also how they’re more or less identical in shading. Light on the bottom, dark on the top. #4 above and #7 above are partially overwritten by new data.Haven't checked all the links, but the two I checked have the UFO on.

There are pictures of all of them here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44276669@N00/13645955/), and an overview picture here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057@N00/13647471/). They do seem to be aligned with one another.

LW, how controllable are weather balloons? Could they fly in 'formation' like this? I don't know the first thing about them, but I'm guessing not.

Which means it's an invasion, clearly. Duck and cover, people.

[wipeout]

The light and shade of the UFO is mis-matched to the direction the sun. Look at the two single trees in the park maybe 100 meters to the right or to the big white building maybe 300 meters upwards and to the right of the UFO.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en

It's close but it's still obviously mis-matched with the direction of the shadows being cast by ground objects.

I think even a moving object would still have a clearer outline and much stronger contrast between light and dark anyway.

Whatever it is, I believe it's not actually there in the sky.

[wipeout]

What if it's some kind of ice-crystal or something from the satellite manouvering jets?

That would perhaps explain why it's out of focus, its white colour, it having a similar but different angle to the sun (atmospheric refraction?) and why it appears in several photos.

It's a thought. Maybe not the right one but it's still a thought. :D

[Moose]

Eh? No, the light on the balloon matches the shadows on the ground. Look at the large grey building at the upper right of the photo group. Nice big shadow on an irregular building. Makes it easy to judge sun direction.

They match.

[wipeout]

Okay, I'm going to suggest it's an ice crystal which is stuck to the front of the camera on the satellite. The ice got there because the satellite was manouvering and so the ice came from a jet. The ice crystal is in shadow from the Sun but is lit up by the light coming from the Earth so that's why the ice crystal is less bright than objects on the ground. Heat travelling through the satellite from the Sunlight striking the satellite is melting the ice crystal.

So that's my guess. :)

[wipeout]

Something else which perhaps suggests it's a melting ice-crystal is that I notice that the numbers in the links in Nucular's post are related to the size of the UFO. The numbers must be the map coordinates, I guess. I'll need to check how it fits (or not).

The ice-crystal idea could also perhaps explains the "alignment" mentioned if it's just different exposures which the images are from.

Edit: I just realized that you can scroll down from the original post in this thread's link and some people in the comments are suggesting a similar idea to me.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Nucular
There are pictures of all of them here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/44276669@N00/13645955/), and an overview picture here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057@N00/13647471/). They do seem to be aligned with one another.

LW, how controllable are weather balloons? Could they fly in 'formation' like this? I don't know the first thing about them, but I'm guessing not.

Which means it's an invasion, clearly. Duck and cover, people.

Hehe, yep. It seems unavoidable to discard the balloons theory. I think we can also discard the ice. Maybe its some kind of grid, like it has been suggested, mm but then why just in that area? or maybe...

nah!

[Red Siegfried]

Well, I figured let's go right to the horse's mouth. I emailed DigitalGlobe, who I think provided these images. I explained our question and pointed them to the images. Maybe they'll have something. Wouldn't surprise me if they already knew the answer but just didn't bother editing the images for whatever reason, probably didn't want to alter the data, that sort of thing.

I'll let you know if I get a response.

[LW]

Originally posted by Nucular
LW, how controllable are weather balloons? Could they fly in 'formation' like this? I don't know the first thing about them, but I'm guessing not.

I'd say no. (Not that we ever tried to do that).

If there was only one picture, a weather balloon would be a nice answer but now that more have surfaced I'll have to drop that argument.

Capturing one balloon in a photo by accident would not be extraordinary but capturing a horde of them at roughly the same altitude would be extremely unlikely.

[c4ts]

Whoops, sneezed on the lens. Sorry about that.

[wipeout]

Off-topic but I found a nice satellite picture of the Mexican airforce "UFOs" again, the oil platforms. I wish we'd had this Google thing last year, it could have helped a lot, although, ironically it's now caused its own mystery with the blob that this thread is about.

I'm still saying it's an ice-crystal. :)

[jmercer]

It seems to me that it's an unidentified flying object. :D

[kalen]

Looks like it's a well aimed rocket heading right for the satellite. Has WWIII started yet?

[CFLarsen]

If it is an alien spaceship, MJ-12 and all that crap....what's it doing on a photo that is easily found by everyone?

Oh, yeah....it is a slip-up, because da gubmint is incompetent.... :eek:

(Dang, it becomes easy to predict the conspiracy nut replies, doesn't it?)

[Timothy]

I can dispel quite a number of these.

I helped design and personally aligned the optics for QuickBird 2, the imager that DigitalGlobe uses for its high-resolution data. I can't tell if this is QuickBird (DigitalGlobe) or IKONOS (EarthSat) data, but the resolution on the ground seems to be consistent with either.

Weather balloon - no. QuickBird is at an altitude of 450 km. It is designed to image up to 30 degrees off nadir. It has a depth of focus that can handle 450 +/- 70 km.

Ice crystal from the satellite maneuvering jets - no. Neither QuickBird nor IKONOS have jets. They adjust pointing via sets of torque rods and reaction wheels.

Ice crystal stuck to the front of the camera - no. Several things. First, there is no "front" of the camera. This is not a big lens pointing at the ground. It's a three-mirror anistigmat, all reflective telescope. The first optic light hits is a 25-inch diameter mirror deep at the *back* of the telescope, and it's well shielded from stray light. Second, anything on the primary mirror would be *completely* out of focus and would simply dim the image ... it would not be visible at all. Third, these satellites do not take pictures in 2-D "frames" that you are used to. They are line-scanning pushbroom imagers. Defects in the imagers would show up as streaks and smears in the image ... not blobs.

Some of the suggestions from the thread where the artifact was noticed ...

Defect in the film ... no. Film wasn't used.

Space debris ... no. Too fast moving.

Alignment points for map data ... no. Map data isn't aligned that way.

Helicopter ... no. I'm just laughing at that one.


The regular grid (and all the other reasoning above) implies that it was added to the data later. For what reason I'm unsure. The data *does* get processed by a number of means to correct spectrum, distortion, to add color to the panchromatic images, joining together swaths, etc. Someone might have accidentally left a temporary marker while processing a data file (why it looks like a fuzzy blob is beyond me). Knowing the reputation of DigitalGlobe, I doubt it's a joke. There's a chance it might be intentional to detect copyright violations (mapmakers regularly insert one or two non-existent features into maps so that if someone copies the map they can claim the material was copied rather than gathered independently).


I'll go with the theory it's a UFO ... unidentified fotographic object.

- Timothy

[Timothy]

But take a look at this entry! I've found some of Jose Escamilla's rods flying over the Charles River! Amazing!

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/12/rowing-on-the-charles-river/

- Timothy

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
or maybe...

nah! Maybe what?? I have to know!

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Red Siegfried
Well, I figured let's go right to the horse's mouth. I emailed DigitalGlobe, who I think provided these images.Good thinking RS, it'll be interesting to know what they say.

[Nucular]

Duplicate post.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Timothy
I can dispel quite a number of these.

I helped design and personally aligned the optics for QuickBird 2, the imager that DigitalGlobe uses for its high-resolution data.Well well well! It's interesting what a mix of people and skills there are on this board, hey.

Hmmm well you put paid to a lot of the theories people have come up with so far, but that just adds to the mystery!The regular grid (and all the other reasoning above) implies that it was added to the data later.I'm not sure about this - the blobs have a three-dimensional appearance, with their shape picked out by the light-source (See photo attached).

How can this be explained by it having been added later? I mean, surely anything else added later - a marker, a watermark, etc. - would have been 2D, wouldn't it? Unless it was the 'joke' scenario, which as you say doesn't seem likely.

Unless at any stage the frames are rephotographed? Sounds a bit low-tech, but if the process required that someone tacked them down, who photographed them and by some error left the tacks in the final copy, this could explain it? This would explain the possibly contradictory light-source, the fact that they're a bit out of focus but not too much, and that they're in formation. But I can't think of why this would be part of the process.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by Nucular
I'm not sure about this - the blobs have a three-dimensional appearance, with their shape picked out by the light-source (See photo attached).
I know, which is what is puzzling. While I can make some statements about what it's not, I'm stumped as to what it is.

I can't convince myself that the object shadows track the ground shadows precisely. The first (in the photo array) is the only one where the object shadow line does not appear to be exactly horizontal, and that *does* seem to match the slightly tilted shadows on the ground. But in other photos the ground shadows tilt slightly to the left, which is not matched by the corresponding object shadow.
How can this be explained by it having been added later? I mean, surely anything else added later - a marker, a watermark, etc. - would have been 2D, wouldn't it? Unless it was the 'joke' scenario, which as you say doesn't seem likely.
The premise of adding it to the data later was based on not having any explanation for it being an actual physical object. If it was added, it would have been overlayed in a transparent mode. Perhaps there's a reason for regularly putting down temporary markers that indicate lighting angle. Perhaps someone was playing with a file and the work file was given to Google by mistake.

The most telling photo is the one where most of the object is gone. The "cut" edge is as fuzzy as the rest of the object. If this is where overlapping images were stitched, why isn't the edge as prominant as in other stitched seams?
Unless at any stage the frames are rephotographed? Sounds a bit low-tech, but if the process required that someone tacked them down, who photographed them and by some error left the tacks in the final copy, this could explain it? This would explain the possibly contradictory light-source, the fact that they're a bit out of focus but not too much, and that they're in formation. But I can't think of why this would be part of the process.
If it's satellite data, no. Everything is digital. And, if it were a photo rephotographed (as opposed to being scanned), there is no shadow of this spherical "pushpin" consistent with the lighting. If it were a flatter "tack" casting no shadow, the edge of it would be in focus.

So ... a list of premises and assumptions and rethinking.

I can imagine no way of imaging an actual object from a satellite that would produce this image *unless* it were a freefloating object approx 20 km from the satellite (quick back of the envelope calc based on focal length of the telescope, orbital height, and estimate of number of pixels of fuzziness.) The fact that there are multiple ones in a straight line of latitude completely rules this out. (Satellite takes images in diagonal strips on the ground.)

I assumed this was satellite data and not an aerial photo. I can't rule out aerial yet. If aerial, then it is taken by either film (unlikely these days) or an array CCD. If either, then it *could* be by an object close to the plane. I can imagine an optical system high in a plane that had to go through a window in the bottom of a plane, and that there's a removeable plate with a metal sphere glued onto it for calibration/alignment purposes, and it's out of focus. I don't *know* of such a system, and there are a myriad more questions to ask ... I'm just grasping at straws for a possibility.

Based on regularity (not a perfect grid, but with several groups at the same latitude) and the fuzziness of the half-gone spheres, the premise with the most promise is a digital artifact added later, either intentionally or accidentally.

I have no clue *why* such an artifact would be digitally added, but it poses the fewest technical questions as to *how* the image was created.

I'm thinking of calling my colleagues at DigitalGlobe Monday morning.

- Timothy

EDITED TO CORRECT: "ground shadows tilt slightly to the right" to "ground shadows tilt slightly to the left"

[Thomas]

I don't get what all da fuss is 'bout. It's just NASA training grounds..

For possible space invaders.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/space-invaders.jpg

[DavoMan]

My first thought was 'a drop of water'. My last thought is 'a drop of water'.

Even some photographer guy in the thread said 'without a doubt - this is a drop of water' and went into detail about how it might get there.

Any kind of 'formation' - well...I'm sure the sattelites move around in a formation, right?

[wipeout]

Thanks for the info, Timothy. :)

I like the picture, Thomas. :D There are some nice Google satellite images of the Gulf of Mexico platforms, I noticed.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by wipeout
There are some nice Google satellite images of the Gulf of Mexico platforms, I noticed.
It matters not, I proved the lights to be santa smuggling dope for the elves. That case is closed as I see it.

By the way, the grid doesn't appear to be a grid. Or at least an incomplete and twisted grid. However, the point that seems to break the pattern the most is also the one that has the least resemblance to the first blob/ufo/thing. This point could be a case of pareidolia as it is only 10-20% of it, which is visible.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/grid.jpg

Edited for elaboration.

[Blondin]

I don't know if this helps or confuses matters but I just happened to come across this image of an airliner (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=winnipeg,+manitoba&ll=49.865205,-97.131178&spn=0.007918,0.010439&t=k&hl=en) passing over my uncle's house.

Notice the blue "ghost plane". It appears there is some kind of colour convergence issue with objects that are between the ground and the camera. This may give the shape and shading of the orbs a whole different meaning.

My feeling is that the grid-like positions of the orbs mean they are probably artifacts added by some stitching or scaling process.

[Winterfrost]

The lighting of the "3d" orb is not consistent with the lighting in the image. There is always a larger, lighter area at the bottom, and a smaller lighter area at the top.

The orb is also dead-centre of the image (in every one of the images I've looked at, at least). Unless they used the exact same plane with the exact same flaw/water-drop/whatever to take pictures over FL and CA, this has to be something added after-the-fact.

My bet is that some sort of identifying mark/logo in the image which was subsequently blurred out for whatever reason. Because the mark and the background were blurred together, it gives the distorted, water-like appearance.

[MattO]

Originally posted by Winterfrost

The orb is also dead-centre of the image (in every one of the images I've looked at, at least). Unless they used the exact same plane with the exact same flaw/water-drop/whatever to take pictures over FL and CA, this has to be something added after-the-fact.



They're "dead center" because the links go to the coordinates of the Google Maps location, which have been centered on the orb thingies.

[Winterfrost]

lol, yeah, I clued into that after I posted. Whoops. :o

I still think it's a blurred logo of some kind, though.

[Luke T.]

God didn't knead all of the air bubbles out of Florida before he put it in the oven. That's why we have these things and sinkholes all over Florida.

[Mr Wolf]

How much processing of these images are done between the photo being taken and it ending up on the website?

How many people are involved in this process, and how likely are they to make fakes?

I think it is either a fake or actual objects. Not saying they are from mars or anything, but I dont think it is a water droplet or ice crystal.

Weather baloons? Seems most likely. Are there any weather balloons that are tethered?

Can we estimate height or size from the photos?

Does anyone live in that area? Could be a well known art project or something there. I know, unlikely.

[tracer]

From the responses in the Post Archive link in the OP:
J Peterson Says:
May 12th, 2005 at 8:16 pm

Weather balloon. Photographs at this scale aren’t taken by satellite, but by aircraft. A balloon would be close enough to the plane (relative to the distance to the ground) to be out of focus.
Photographs at this scale aren’t taken by satellite, but by aircraft.

Very important point to remember when looking at Google Maps or similar pictures-from-above mapping engines.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by tracer
Photographs at this scale aren’t taken by satellite, but by aircraft.
That would be with something like one of these:

http://www.surplusshed.com/images/items/I1433_1.jpg
Designed for the U.S. Air Force for use in fighter/bomber aircraft or reconnaissance aircraft. It scans 180 degrees for photographic assessment of strike mission damage. It has automatic exposure control and a double Dove prism that rotates to provide the 2.25" by 9.40" image format. Takes 70mm by 250 ft. roll film. Has great resolution with the Carl Zeiss 3" focal length f/2.8 lens. Angle of view is 41 degrees, 6 seconds by 180 degrees. Shutter speeds from 1/100 to 1/4000. 300 exposures per roll of film.

That would make it quite possible that the orbs are just a drop of water, spec of dirt, etc on the prism or window.

[gerdbonk]

Originally posted by Blondin
That would be with something like one of these:


That would make it quite possible that the orbs are just a drop of water, spec of dirt, etc on the prism or window.

With the lens focused on the distant Earth's surface, any speck on the optics or nearby window would be blurred to invisibility (though it would block a negligible percentage of light).

Test: Aim your camera through a spotty window at an object across the street. You won't see any spots on your image.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by gerdbonk
With the lens focused on the distant Earth's surface, any speck on the optics or nearby window would be blurred to invisibility (though it would block a negligible percentage of light).

Test: Aim your camera through a spotty window at an object across the street. You won't see any spots on your image.

Yes, I dont buy that either. Ignoring the processing that the photos take before appearing on Google, I think we cant get an answer.

But one thing is certain, either those things were made in the process or they are flying objects. And I do prefer the first possibility, the other is, well, weird...

[Nucular]

This is actually being discussed all over the net now, though most people it seems haven't clocked that there are several, which makes them think it's just a weather balloon.

One good suggestion I saw was that it might be a thing Google have been made to add to shield secret facilities, etc.; although some of the blobs just look like they're over housing estates or whatever, you never can tell, plus it occurred to me that they migt have to add a certain number of 'dummy' ones as a misdirection tactic.

This (http://www.rense.com/general65/sim.htm) site has been linked to as a ground-based photo which seems to have captured something looking quite similar. Assuming it's not just a fake, its significance could be that it's some kind of digital artifact, whether arising from the camera itself or later processing?

Here's a compressed version of the picture, and on the site is a description of the camera used.

[gerdbonk]

Originally posted by Nucular

Here's a compressed version of the picture, and on the site is a description of the camera used.

Without knowing the details of the environment, and seeing the other photos in the series the author mentions, I'd guess it's a golf ball.

I would like to point out the shading of that artifact, though. it nicely describes a sphere lit from a high angle.

Which brings us back to the "orbs" in question, most of which display a big fat "shadow" right on top, where the sun ought to be shining.

[Thomas]

Edited for bunk.

Where did Timothy go anyway?

[Timothy]

Aw, thanks for thinking of me.

I was actually in Florida on business travel and busy with work for the last week.


The link to the OP has a couple posts where someone claims to have tracked down through the photo metadata that the photo(s) come from AerialExpress.com, and that there is info indicating that the photo was taken from an altitude of 17,500 ft.

The googlesightseeing.com posters have also found similar artifacts in images of southern California.

Someone else has pulled up the following that they claim is the data for the camera used for the images

"In terms of the lens defect theory, these photos are taken with highly specialized equipment. If you find the same anomalies on the USGS site and inspect the metadata for the aerial photo layer, you’ll see that Aerials Express of Tempe Arizona is the source for both the Florida and California images (which was previously mentioned). They also list the equipment used to take these photos:

Number of Tiles 139
Sq Miles 1,442
Scale 1:30000
Flight Date January - March 2003
Datum NAD 83
Projection UTM 11
Units Meters
Pixel Size 0.65 Meter
Format Geotiff
Rectification Method Orthorectify using Ground Control Points
DEM 30-meter DEMS (Level 1, Level 2)
Contol Image USGS DOQs
Camera Type Zeiss Top 15
Focal Length 153 mm
Film Type 9″ Color Roll Film
Scanning 21 Microns
Sampling Method Cubic Convolution"


I'm too busy at the moment to go delving into things, and frankly, my interest on this subject is waning since there's more and more evidence that it's not satellite related.

I will simply clarify a few misconceptions that are going around.

Comment: Satellite photos aren't this good.
Answer: The pixel size (GSD) of the camera above is listed as 0.65m. That is precisely the same resolution as the QuickBird 2 satellite used by DigitalGlobe. (Check out the digitalglobe website for sample images ... including one of my city, in which I can pick out my cars in front of my house.)

Comment: Dust, water drop, etc. on lens.
Answer: I design optics for a living. While it's impossible to tell without having detailed information about what equipment was used to take the photo, *no* one would be so mind-bogglingly stupid as to design an aerial camera that would have an intermediate focal plane near a window or surface that could accumulate contamination (including water). Your images would be plagued by artifacts. You purposely design to *avoid* those conditions.


Too many commenters are claiming "It is clear that ..." when all they're doing is speculating from their own knowledge base, which is often pretty thin.

At this point, unless someone with unequivocal knowledge of what they are comes along, there are too many unknowns. Anything is simply speculation with varying degrees of validity.

- Timothy

[DavoMan]

It would be one hell fast camera to take that photo if it were a golf ball.

It looks like a baloon. Ya can even see a little knob thing at the bottom. Although if it's a compressed image like JPEG or whatnot, then you can forget any kind of close-up analysis.

JPEG is just awful as far as loss of information is concerned. Well not that I could make a better codec or anything, but ya get my point.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Timothy
At this point, unless someone with unequivocal knowledge of what they are comes along, there are too many unknowns. Anything is simply speculation with varying degrees of validity.
True, I won't jump to any conclusions at all either.

I'll just repeat the map with the positions of the spheres, because it may be the coordinates of these that can be the crux of this case.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/grid.jpg

One thing is, more or less, for sure, these things weren't there in february 1999.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/terraserver.jpg

However, what this means; isn't really much more than what I just said.

Edit: Idea deleted.

[Thomas]

I think we may have a solid theory with overwhelming evidence at hand. Be back later.

[Nucular]

Originally posted by Thomas
I think we may have a solid theory with overwhelming evidence at hand. Be back later. Oooh, sounds intriguing... it's got to do with leylines, right?

[Thomas]

Ok, to say �overwhelming evidence� and �solid theory� may be to push it all a little bit too far, but we do have a good hypothesis though. However, the problem is that even though this hypothesis explains the origin of the mystery, it doesn’t explain exactly what the spheres are.
Still, without this hypothesis it could never become a theory, so I’ll just round up what it’s all about.

A number of discoveries made by the Google Sightseeing team (http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/) are essential here:


1) 6-8 spheres were spotted in Florida in more or less grid-like or triangular patterns.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/grid.jpg


2) 13 spheres were spotted in Los Angeles oriented more or less on a straight line.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057@N00/14574287/


3) There appear to be something following some of the spheres on a number of the images. It could be a fiber caught in the production process - evident by an identical pattern, as pressed by some photo quipment.

http://img169.echo.cx/img169/2920/ufo55bg.jpg


4) Some of them appear in light/dark-twin, almost similar, formations. A shadow is a possibility, but then it is hard to explain why it is missing on the rest of them.

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/#comment-1833


5) An odd flare that looks like the beginning or ending of an entire sphere appears in one image.

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/#comment-1833


6) One of them is apparently transparent.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.137354,-117.749856&spn=0.005504,0.007768&t=k&hl=en


7) Here’s one that it is almost half.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902041,-80.357265&spn=0.005504,0.007768&t=k&hl=en


8) The map image is made out of many smaller maps that are stitched together in somewhat erratic patterns.

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=washington+dc&ll=38.755989,-77.038536&spn=0.063171,0.083342&t=k&hl=en


9) The guy who composed the maps has apparently left a mark behind; and this could be a good hint concerning the appearance of the symbols used for this process.
Notice also more evidence of the apparently erratic stitching process.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.854713,-118.207054&spn=0.007896,0.010418&t=k&hl=en


I think all the evidence so far supports the idea that this is an artifact which has occurred in the post-productions. Sadly, I can’t convert this artifact-hypothesis to a theory, because I have absolutely no knowledge of how many times the images has been converted and re-scanned in this process – or even exactly how. Still, I do believe that the artifact-hypothesis is justified by the fact they come in metal/white/blue/purple/transparent/half, as twins, and with small identical erratic lines that look like lint in a scanner or similar.

The question which remains if one accepts the artifact-hypothesis is whether the spheres are made of dust, liquid, metal or something entirely different.
It’s a hypothesis, not a conclusion, but it’s an interesting one because it might be on the right track. Other ideas are also interesting, but they do encounter a number of problems due to the shifting shapes, the missing shadows, the formations and the colors and opacities of the already too famous spheres.

[Thomas]

Things are really starting to line up now. The guy who calls himself Atomic has now found even more of these scanner/lens-impurities. These new ones even appear in a very regular pattern.

Look here:

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/#comment-1994

..and here:

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/#comment-1996

Things are moving fast in this case, another guy found a new sphere in LA just earlier. One that fits the missing piece in a somewhat perfect line:

http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/18/ufo-update/#comment-1986

Well, I guess the guys who prepared these images could use an overall in the office.
Whatever these spheres are, I'm pretty sure they have to do with a lens/scanner-impurity now. There are too much evidence to suggest this.

Due to the new discoveries it now looks like a theory to me.

[chillzero]

Originally posted by Timothy
Comment: Dust, water drop, etc. on lens.
Answer: I design optics for a living. While it's impossible to tell without having detailed information about what equipment was used to take the photo, *no* one would be so mind-bogglingly stupid as to design an aerial camera that would have an intermediate focal plane near a window or surface that could accumulate contamination (including water). Your images would be plagued by artifacts. You purposely design to *avoid* those conditions.

Yeah, just like no one would be mind bogglingly stupid enough to spend $125 million or so getting a craft to Mars, and forget to identify whether to use metric or imperial measurements.

Was that in feet, or what? (http://www.anomalous-images.com/news/news537.html)

:D

[Hitch]

I thought we'd decided the Prophet Yahweh was beind this: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57584

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Thomas
True, I won't jump to any conclusions at all either.

I'll just repeat the map with the positions of the spheres, because it may be the coordinates of these that can be the crux of this case.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/grid.jpg

One thing is, more or less, for sure, these things weren't there in february 1999.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/terraserver.jpg

However, what this means; isn't really much more than what I just said.

Edit: Idea deleted.

Has anyone suggested that google might merely be obscuring the private property of some people who have complained to them?

[Thomas]

Originally posted by Gr8wight
Has anyone suggested that google might merely be obscuring the private property of some people who have complained to them?
If you read the hypothesis I've proposed a couple of posts ago, then you'll see that the Google spheres show up in lines with somewhat equal distances apart. In three major groups actually. They also come in several diffrent shapes, opacities and colors.

What you suggest, were actually proposed in variants several times in the beginning, but the new evidence that came to light basically rules out that idea. As things stand, it appears to be an impurity on the scanning device, or on a lens used in the post-production (the last time I checked it, anyway).

[MountainJack]

Timothy suggests above that the Google photos were taken by Aerials Express using a Zeiss Top 15 camera (http://www.kam-az.com/top15-small.jpg) using 9� color roll film. If so, the film would be scanned later to produce the digital images we get from Google. Each tile would cover 1442/139=10.4 square miles, which would be a square 3.22 miles on a side. After scanning, the digital images would probably be inspected for flaws, and if any were found, the film could be re-scanned and the flaw edited out. Then the corrected tiles would be stitched together to obtain the big digital map that we access through Google maps. This is speculation, but it seems reasonable that a process like this would be used.

I suspect that the orbs are digital markers added to the scans to indicate places where scanner flaws appear on the initial scans. We see the orbs and flaws on Google maps because the inspector missed a few imperfections, and the rescan guy missed a few of the markers laid down by the inspector.

In support of this speculation, observe the series of 11 flaws and orbs in a straight line around 35.5 miles long in California, from Glendora to San Bernardino. Here is a composite (http://home.supernet.com/~jacksmountain/images/California%20Orbs%20B.jpg) of 11 cropped digital images from Google, spread over 14 tiles. All these images are at very close to the same latitude, suggesting that the pilot of the photography plane was attempting to fly East-West at a fixed latitude and altitude.

At the center of the first six images (4 in the top row and 2 in the second row) there is an obvious comma-shaped flaw, identical in each image, and probably caused by a hair or scratch or dust mote on the scanner. These “commas� are separated by 0.048 degrees of longitude, or multiples of 0.048, suggesting that each tile covers that width. This is equivalent to about 2.75 miles at this latitude, which is consistent with the Zeiss Top 15 capability. The next 5 images show orbs at exactly the same locations that one would expect to find a comma. This suggests that the inspector missed marking the first 6 commas, but did mark the next 5. The cleanup guy then ignored the 6 unmarked imperfections but missed the 5 marked flaws.

Here is another composite (http://home.supernet.com/~jacksmountain/images/California%20Orbs%20C.jpg) of 6 cropped images showing orbs or flaws that are also at 0.048 degrees (or multiples of 0.048 degrees) apart. All these images are at very nearly the same latitude, but slightly south of the 11 images discussed above. The first two orbs appear to have no flaws near them, but the next 3 orbs have a C-shaped flaw immediately to their left (i.e., “pigtails�). The final image shows a pigtail flaw with no nearby orb. This suggests that the inspector marked the first 2 pigtail flaws by covering them with an orb, marked the next 3 pigtails by marking them with an adjacent orb, and missed the final pigtail. And the cleanup guy missed all 6.

This is by no means a proof, but seems to me to be a plausible scenario to explain what we see on the Google maps.

Google and Aerials Express are probably reluctant to admit that they missed a few markers and scanner flaws, so they will probably not respond to the several emails that have been sent to them requesting an explanation of the orbs.

[Thomas]

Originally posted by MountainJack
Google and Aerials Express are probably reluctant to admit that they missed a few markers and scanner flaws, so they will probably not respond to the several emails that have been sent to them requesting an explanation of the orbs.
Welcome.

Good hypothesis all-in-all, well investigated. One thing that isn't all clear from your post, is what you think the actual origin of the spheres / markers are. Digital? Physical?

Concerning the silence of Google and Aerials Express, it may also be possible that they have no idea how the spheres came there in the first place, hence why they are there. It is possible that these images has been through so many re-scans by various companies that the answer disappeared together with the closure of some smaller studio several years ago.

[marko]

Has anyone asked Google? Sounds stoopid, but it would save a lot of time.

[MountainJack]

Definitely digital, although why the fuzzy orb was selected as a marker is not obvious. I would have used something more like what we see in this image:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.854713,-118.207054&spn=0.007317,0.007060&t=k&hl=en

Perhaps each inspector or group doing inspections used different markers.

Edit: BTW, the above picture is interesting because it shows a small patch job that has been done on the larger image. The pasted patch is slightly darker than the surrounding image, and It also shows a curved edge right below the marker that should have been edited out but wasn't. The fact that this marking and editing has been done is another point supporting the marker hypothesis for the orbs, because marking and editing has clearly been done in this instance.

[marko]

good hypothesis. FFS!!!!!!!!!! Maybe Google put them there for all you shmucks to talk about. Is this a 'UFO exist' site?

How many times have you flown in a place?

How many times have you seen blurry disks hovering below you?

If your answer is more than zero please keep posting.

If not, don't!

[Thomas]

Originally posted by MountainJack
Definitely digital, although why the fuzzy orb was selected as a marker is not obvious.

Exactly, and that's also why I asked. You see, it makes no sense that they come in very dark and very light presentations. Some of them also have clear opacities like the one at 34.1375, and then there's the problem concerning the blurring.


I think it would be worth to consider the possibility that these spheres are physical makers of some sort with has been forgot in the scanning process. It would explain the various shapes, colors and opacities, whereas the hypothesis concerning digital adding fails to explain the individual appearence of the spheres.


I would have used something more like what we see in this image:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=33.854713,-118.207054&spn=0.007317,0.007060&t=k&hl=en

Perhaps each inspector or group doing inspections used different markers.

Edit: BTW, the above picture is interesting because it shows a small patch job that has been done on the larger image. The pasted patch is slightly darker than the surrounding image, and It also shows a curved edge right below the marker that should have been edited out but wasn't. The fact that this marking and editing has been done is another point supporting the marker hypothesis for the orbs, because marking and editing has clearly been done in this instance.
If you read the post where I introduced artifact-hypothesis (which is basically the same you proposed here later), then you'll see that I say the exact same things about this exact same image.



Marko,

This it not a "UFOs exists" site no, it is an "Explain this phenomenon asap, before the imagination of the woos run amuck" site.

[Timothy]

Interesting photo showing aircraft in flight significantly close to the camera (hence an aerial versus satellite photo), and no evidence of the aircraft being out of focus ... just to corroborate the previous statements that the blurriness of the "orbs" has nothing to do with distance ... unless they're about an inch in diameter a dozen feet from the camera.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.299316,-118.603935&spn=0.005128,0.007467&t=k&hl=en

- Timothy

[Ruse]

Despite not knowing what those blobs are, Google maps is still pretty cool.

here's a few links to cool pictures from Google maps...

Area 51...

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=rachel,nv&ll=37.234167,-115.816667&spn=0.195007,0.293198&t=k&hl=en

The White House (with roof blocked out)

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=1600+pennsylvania+avenue,washington,+dc&ll=38.897631,-77.036680&spn=0.003744,0.005300&t=k&hl=en

Airplane Graveyard

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tucson,+AZ&ll=32.165930,-110.863917&spn=0.007489,0.010600&t=k&hl=en

(that's a lot of frickin airplanes.)

[Hitch]

Originally posted by Ruse
Airplane Graveyard

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Tucson,+AZ&ll=32.165930,-110.863917&spn=0.007489,0.010600&t=k&hl=en

(that's a lot of frickin airplanes.)

LOOK! Near the lower right corner of that picture... three orbs in formation!


...no, wait... never mind. ;)

[sat556]

Nobody managed to find Area 51 on the Google maps yet?

[MountainJack]

Several posters in various fora have stated that they emailed Google about the orbs and got no reply. Well, they just replied to an email I sent them last week. I asked the following:

“Google maps show up some unexplained orb-like objects in Florida and California and the web is buzzing. Search on google+maps+ufo+florida and you get 137,000 hits. Yet there is no comment from Google. Why? You guys know or can find out what these things are, so why don't you tell us?�

They sent me what appears to be a form letter:

“Thank you for your interest in Google Maps (beta). We understand that some images on Google Maps may catch your attention. At this time, we're unable to verify individual points of interest. Please continue to enjoy this product, and let us know if you have any further questions or concerns. We appreciate your patience as we continue to work on improving Google Maps.�

At least I got a response. I'll keep trying to get them to focus on the orbs, but their first response is pretty unresponsive.

[Timothy]

Originally posted by sat556
Nobody managed to find Area 51 on the Google maps yet?
Area 51, aka Groom Lake is visible on Google Maps at

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Las+Vegas,+NV&ll=37.255154,-115.802593&spn=0.084457,.123253&t=k&hl=en

However, a much higher resolution photo from the Ikonos satellite is available at

http://www.fas.org/irp/overhead/ikonos_040400_overview_02.htm

- Timothy

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Thomas
I don't get what all da fuss is 'bout. It's just NASA training grounds..

For possible space invaders.

http://www.progression-labs.com/images/space-invaders.jpg

So that's what happened to Discovery...