|
Google Sattelite UFO Photo
|
Posted By:
Winona
in USA
May 12, 2005
|
This link has been making the rounds, claiming it's a possible UFO caught on the Google sattelite map system.
I can replicate the link by going to West Palm Beach FL and finding the site aside from using the link. I took photo of the area they think is a UFO into photoshop, and it looks just like they blurred an area. So, what do you guys think - is it a map copyright mistake, or a blurred building. I'm not at all familiar with West Palm, so I wouldnt know if there were any critical buildings that they would blur.
For the record, I don't think it's a UFO. 
|
Comments
|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
John Sawyer
in Berkeley CA
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 02:05 AM
It's line-segment 51 we ought to be looking for!
No, no, no...it's one-dimensional point 51!!!
That way, "they" can carry it around in their pocket, away from prying eyes, and portable. They can bring it to the breakfast table if they wish.
On a less serious note, Jim K. is probably right, due to focus issues, they're probably not droplets on the glass covering over the satellite's camera compartment, but I'd like to know the actual focal length of one of these cameras--possibly almost the entire distance from the camera lens to the ground is in focus, except for some distance from the lens to a point some X number of feet away. If so, the idea that they may be drops on the inner surface of the cover glass might be considered.
I don't think these Google images are scanned from printed photos--they're produced from digital transmissions from the satellite to the ground, not from film the satellite cameras take and drop to the ground. If they were scanned photos, they'd lose their resolution, and you couldn't zoom into them at such high detail.
Unfortunately, the Google Maps FAQ page doesn't give any info about the sources of these images. |
Jim K.
in Indiana
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 05:10 PM
About 10 years ago, oh my gosh, maybe even 15, National Geographic published a compilation photograph comprised of sattelite images taken strategically at (obviously) different times and put them all together to provide one complete sattelite image of the entire Earth, (almost) entirely cloud free. It wasn't perfect as far as the cloud free part went but is the most cloud free and accurate sattelite image comprised to date. That is the same image that Google.com uses for their low-res images for "unimportant" locations like the middle of the ocean, many rural areas, and of course areas they don't have better photos for. As for the more detailed ones, well, I don't know.
I am glad to see that this forum isn't as stupid as others I've visited on the topic. There was one in another forum who suggested that they weren't sattelite photos at all because the buildings in the cities were not exactly 'top-down,' that is, the photos were taken at a bit of an angle. As if the sattelite will orbit over every single city just to take a perfect 'top-down' image. Then there was another who was seriously suggesting that they are a part of the "planetary cloaking system." Something to prevent us from seeing what's really out there.... (cue eerie music) |
Jim K.
in Indiana
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 05:48 PM
Hey, has anyone found any crop circles yet? That would be a cool find! |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 | 04:38 AM
Google seem to treat most farmland as relatively unimportant [what are they eating, dollar bills?!] and only give it the low-res treatment.
What I'd like to find is half a crop circle, but as they're usually made at night, I guess it'll never happen. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 | 06:24 AM
Just to sort of make note of here...Those photos might be years old. I checked out the area near my neighborhood, and a private school that's been built, running, and functional for about the last year is still shown as a sandy clearing. So, that was at minimum 2 years ago...
And then further down the road, you can see the Walgreens hasn't been finished yet, it's still a sandy lot with a building. No parking lot, or finished roof. That's been in place about 2 1/2 years.
And is it just me, or is it sort of creepy how retention ponds look like black voids?? |
Ric/wpb/fl
in west palm beach, fl
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 | 11:50 PM
I live on the SW side of Lake Mangonia and the N to E side of the lake are pretty bad neighborhoods. There have been several Meth labs busted there and that is probably one going up in smoke---- again. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 | 08:15 AM
OH!! I just had a revelation. (I also hope that I'm not posting a redundant thought.)
Maybe this is Google's little trick they use to keep their maps from being stolen and duplicated.
OR!! The satellite caught a naked person, and the little dot is just blurring them out. Heh.
Okay. I'm finished guessing, for now. |
Winona
in USA
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 | 03:00 PM
Not really that redundant, but that's what I meant when I said copyright mistake in the original topic bit. I know mapmakers usually have those markers, but I have no idea if an online sat map or such would also have those.
My cousin is a catographer, but unfortunately he probably wouldnt know either. |
Charybdis
in Hell
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 | 03:04 PM
Maybe they're place markers for assembling the full image from the individual photos. |
John Sawyer
in Berkeley, CA
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 | 01:06 AM
I've been reading a few other forums about the Google UFOs, and found that the closest-up photos of the Earth aren't satellite pictures--they're actually taken by planes about 17,500 feet up. Not that this changes anything regarding the theories, as far as I can tell.
And STILL no forums have posted any reply from Google. Will I have to do it myself??? |
Changis
in Norway
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 | 01:12 PM
am I the only one who sees some faded map-text Here and here and some of the others too
just zoom in max, and you'll see some white text in the grey blobs vicinity (you can clearly see "google" and "2005 in two of the images)
this would suggest only 1 thing. the images have a copyright text wich wasn't completely overlapped or removed from the original image. most probably google have used previous airial photos to combine into "the world", and the software hasn't fully removed the copyright text
why should a UFO have a text like "... Google" written within 1cm in the image? |
David B.
in Reading, England.
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 | 11:25 AM
why should a UFO have a text like "... Google" written within 1cm in the image?
Because it appears everywhere in all the images. It's called a watermark and Google include it to prevent people nicking the images (which are copyrighted) for comercial purposes.
Not so much "haven't fully removed" as "have subtly added".  |
KD
in Pasadena, CA
|
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 | 04:55 PM
I |
Marnie
in Brisbane
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 | 06:59 PM
i think it is real!  |
Changis
in Norway
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 | 07:03 PM
Kid: i'd like an update when you're done  sounds interesting |
Rohit
in Visakhapatnam
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 | 12:57 PM
The UFO thing that you guys are discussing about can be a simple object like a Gas Balloon.What do you think? |
Konan
in Qu
|
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 | 12:48 AM
Doesnt look like a UFO to me... but there's some other freaky things going on with google sattelite !!! like a white spot illuminating from within the earth or other imperfection.... the blue dots may just be some other BUG from the whole process of making, diffusing those images... Commercial sattelite just not a perfect technology yet!
For the guy who said that these picture were 3 years old.... around where I live its under developpement and most of it is there... like less than a year old!!! so feels like they still work on it...!!! anyway...have a nice day!!!! and sorry for my english... I'm trying to learn it!!! |
Lacotta
in Italy
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 | 06:14 AM
And Watertowers are not 100ft-150ftin diameter and above the house! I think maybe just maybe somebody is trying to tells us something. In the satellite imagery office they are taking pictures all the time and from certain area are a lot of pics. THey are selecting those pictures (which is the better with less anomalies) and here is suspicious.
Why somebody wants to deliberately put those images on the areal map of the world? I think here is the answer!
Another teory!
These are not Military machines(If this is a UFO is too advanced then ours! Blur is because the image is focused to the ground and this is above the ground! |
lacotta
in Italy
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 | 06:37 AM
KD...You may look for better evidence then that. Maybe this is not a UFO. Look in the direction of the Disclosure Project, x-Conference and Expolitics and why Military witnesses wants to disclose the UFO and ET facts. These are real evidence or you are not allowed to talk about?
The Mystery must be soloved. THere are mysteries from 1945 to 2005. Since atomic bomb tests to this day.(The world's first nuclear weapon was tested on July 16, 1945, near Alamogordo, New Mexico) If you want to help the world do in that way. Iam from Italy and i can tell you here in Europe is more open debate then in the UNStates but still hidden by many political bodies. I saw the UFO almost every week and are too many. Something is going on. Because of that we must Disclose the Facts.
Sorry for my English!
X-conference
Expolitics
Disclosure Project
This are real evidence and many more countries are joining this project!! |
phil mcbaggypants
in middle o' nowhere
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 | 12:09 AM
hello,
i realized that if yo search "area 51" it comes up with something. a little building complex thing next to a big white blob. if you zoom in too far it will get rid of the picture.i've found more big white blobs that appear to be icecaps or something but this one appears to be whiter and blobier and more special |
|
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 > |
In order to post comments you have to register as a member of the site. We were forced to restrict commenting because spammers were flooding the comment form with spam and crashing the server.
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
