The Museum of Hoaxes
hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive hoax archive
 
The Cradle of the Deep, a literary hoax, 1929
Did Paul McCartney die on Nov. 9, 1966?
Rare planetary alignment decreases gravity, 1976
The Berners Street Hoax, 1810
Sober Sue, the woman who never smiled, 1907
Jennifer Love Hewitt's Disappearing Breasts
The disumbrationist art hoax, 1924
Life discovered on the moon, 1835
Lord Gordon-Gordon, robber of the robber barons, 1871
Fake Fish Photos
Florida UFO
Here's another Google satellite map oddity. It's a photo of West Palm Beach, Florida. But look closely. The satellite appears to have captured a UFO flying overhead:

image
(via Outhouse Rag)
Categories: Extraterrestrial Life, Photos/Videos
Posted by The Curator on Mon May 16, 2005
Comments (30)
Looks just like a weather balloon to me. What say you lot?
Posted by frookah  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  04:08 AM
It doesn't look right to be a water-tower or something like that, especially not in the middle of the neighbourhood like it is. I don't see any shadow from it, either, but that doesn't really mean anything. The problem is that there's no sense of scale. It could be a balloon 500 feet above the houses, or it could be a piece of space debris 1/2 inch from the camera. Or it could be the work of a bored guy with a computer and a drawing program.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  05:24 AM
There has been a raving discussion about this on Google Sightseeing's blog. Apparently, there are other blurry dots in some sort of grid. http://www.googlesightseeing.com/2005/05/12/ufo/#comments
Posted by Nick  in  USA  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  05:52 AM
Here are all 8 of the 'anomalies'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/44276669@N00/13645955/
and where they are on a map (small pinpoints, look carefully)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057@N00/13647471/
Posted by Nick  in  USA  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  05:56 AM
Well, it looks like an easily manipulated image.

Or it could be a drop of liquid on a lens.
Posted by Maegan  in  Tampa, FL - USA  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  11:28 AM
The shadows of the buildings on the ground are very short, while the light reflecting on the object in question seems to be coming from the lower left at a rather low angle which (if it were sunlight) should product long shadows on the ground.
Posted by Bob  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  11:40 AM
Obviously those are thumbtacks from where they stuck the satelite photos together.
Posted by sombrero11  in  Cleveland, OH  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  12:22 PM
I've actually seen that one before, flying over a Waffle House out in west Exas last fall. I can't believe they've got it in a photo. It's real.
Posted by booch  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  01:15 PM
it looks like the millenium dome (in london) to me even if they say its in florida.
im thinking cut and paste
Posted by grimm  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  03:26 PM
Unless this picture was taken by a very low-orbiting satellite, I doubt that it would be a drop of liquid on the camera lens.
Posted by Accipiter  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  05:23 PM
It shouldn't be moisture on the lens, otherwise I doubt that the satelite wouldn't last very long and I'd be worried about where it's going to crash into...
Posted by Soldant  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  10:34 PM
Crap! Screwed up my comment:
" doubt that the satelite wouldn't last very long"
Should be:
"I doubt that the satelite would last very long"
Posted by Soldant  on  Mon May 16, 2005  at  10:35 PM
in the opening credits of brit soap "eastenders" the camera flies above the river thames going though london and it passes over the millieum dome near the river...

thats what this photo looks like to me, im not saying thats what it is but u know..
Posted by joeodd  on  Tue May 17, 2005  at  06:35 AM
This is debris in space. Clearly. Or rather... blurrily. I know, it's not a word. Deal.

1) Look at the shadows on the ground. They are from an almost overhead sun, with most houses having sun on both sides of their roofs.

Now look at the object. It has direct light only on a small portion on one side. It's at a much higher elevation than everything else in the picture. Say... in space perhaps.

Not conclusive, I know, but wait, there's more.

2) Look at the area around the "UFO". It's blurry. A satelite based camera is basically a humongous zoom lens. If you've ever used a manual focus camera lens, you know that lenses basically have focuses that go from close up to infinite. And infinite covers the majority of shots. The only way this can be out of focus is for it to be VERY close to the lens.

3) Look at this picture, taken with the same keyhole satelites:



The plane in this picture is:
a) in focus.
b) extremely large in the frame. It's in air, probably at a high altitude. Go find other pictures of planes in air, there are many, and most are much smaller, because they have just taken off or are landing.

The "UFO" in this picture has to be much higher off the ground than the 737(?) in the picture because it is out of the focal range of the lens. It must also be much smaller than the plane because it's size int he frame is negligable. Add in the weird shadowing issue, and I think we can all agree that it's 99% positively a piece of space junk.
Posted by Dan  in  Philadelphia, PA  on  Tue May 17, 2005  at  11:22 AM
If it is space junk,it must have come off of the satellite taking the pictures itself. The relative velocities of things in different orbits is so great you could never get a round image of it; the image would be a streak. If it was something comming off the satellite itself, and in direct sunlight, it would be extremely bright. More than one astronaut has said that the most beautiful thing they saw in space were urine dumps. The sun shining on the drops was like a bright constellation.

If you look at the other pictures, most of them seem to have light comming from two opposite sides. Except that the pictures are entirely digital,it looks more defects on conventional film.
Posted by Peter  on  Tue May 17, 2005  at  12:08 PM
You're probably right, it probably came off the satelite itself.

Look at this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057@N00/13647471/

The "UFO"'s seem to come at fairly regular intervals... and I would bet that if you looked hard enough in the missing spots, you would find another "UFO". It looks like it's moving along with the sat.

I can't say anything about the brightness of the object, since we don't know what exactly the object is, or what it's made of. If it's not a particularly reflective piece of grit, there's no reason for it to sparkle.
Posted by Dan  in  Philadelphia, PA  on  Tue May 17, 2005  at  12:17 PM
Find out the adresses were these "spheres" are and check who lives there.
Maybe that gives a clue.
Posted by Beasjt  in  Earth  on  Wed May 18, 2005  at  01:38 PM
hhhmmmmmm....doesnt look like a "ufo" because in MY OPINION "ufo"s are hubcaps with glow-in-the-dark stickers on them.......it doesnt really look like space junk either....im goin w/ sombrero11 and sayin that it looks like the thumbtack from where they put the pictures together =)
Posted by spazeabE  on  Wed May 18, 2005  at  04:49 PM
It is a Ramonian Surveillance Drone. There will be many more to come here soon. I can say no more. Rrrraoul
Posted by Raoul  on  Wed May 18, 2005  at  05:06 PM
It's definitely a UFO, I'm serious.

Since we don't really know what it is, it's Unidentified; even if it's a piece of debris stuck on the lens, it's still Flying along with it, and until proven otherwise, it's an Object of some kind.
Posted by Gutza  in  Bucharest  on  Thu May 19, 2005  at  05:09 AM
Checkout the link listed earlier with eight such sightings... This is number six:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=26.902041,-80.357265&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k

Look at the shape of this thing... it clearly conforms to the tree-line below it... this kinda messes up what some of you have been saying about it being space-junk...
Posted by Jonathan Lowry  in  Raleigh, NC, USA  on  Thu May 19, 2005  at  01:29 PM
yes...well i s'pose if you look at it that way, then i guess it is, but, since i believe that it is a thumbtack then it's identified for me, so it's either identified or unidentified depending on YOUR OPINION grin
Posted by spazEabE  on  Thu May 19, 2005  at  06:40 PM
and i was replying to gutza btw.....sorry if i confused u =D
Posted by spazEabE  on  Thu May 19, 2005  at  06:43 PM
C'mon, folks... This reminds me of some buzz that went around around 5 or so years ago regarding "swarming ufo's photographed by the Space Shuttle"...
Sure, no one can say for sure what it is... It's too blurry, not to mention transparent in some of the photos.
But, doesn't anyone find it curious that:
1) The "object" appears in dead-center of absolutely EVERY photo in which it appears??
[..."Oh, well, that's because They either wanted to contact us that way, or the Shadow Government was secretly on the project, tracking this thing!!"...]
2) We already know that the photos are not "pure" due to the fact that we can see "google" logos watermarked on most of these files
3) in some of these watermarked photos, the "google 2005" logo distorts/bends-around precisely in the vicinity of the "object"
[..."Well, that's because the Spacecraft has Super-Secret-Weird-Gravity which has the power to bend digital watermarks which may appear on a photo..even though digital information doesn't really have mass..dooooooooohhhhhhhhh!"...]
Posted by Barney Rubble  in  Long Beach, CA  on  Mon May 23, 2005  at  02:06 AM
Did you ever think it might be someone who cleverly and meticulously generated and then disguised their mouse imprint (the default arrow) as a 3D generated UFO pic...sheesh!? Did you ever hear of screenshots?

Unless that puppy is hovering where it appears to be, there is no land shadow and the variance of lighting on the "actual" UFO is too dark. No case.
Posted by Ohne Mitleid  in  USA, trust me  on  Tue May 31, 2005  at  07:34 PM
finally there is proof! this is the proof of the ufos you see every day!!!
Posted by a-sizzle  on  Mon Jun 13, 2005  at  10:20 PM
OMG, I opened all the links right, and checked down all the 'ufos' and between some i had a quiz around and actually found some.. and i have put them all in, double checked and i have 14 ufos, not 13.. this is odd...
Posted by Reid  in  Australia  on  Wed Aug 03, 2005  at  03:28 PM
This fake can be easily done in about 10 minutes...plop the google earth image onto a two dimensional plane in about any 3D apllication (bryce,etc...)put a spere, or just about any other type of primitive in front of the 3d plane and manipulate the lighting! I can prove it if needed...with actually a more convinceing space ship or two..or how many you may want. Let me know, sounds like fun!
Posted by 3d artist  in  USA  on  Mon Mar 20, 2006  at  01:09 AM
Let's say for a moment that you manipulated the photo as you suggested... how would you get it uploaded to Google maps? Hmmmmmm?

So the real question is not IF it can be replicated as a hoax (it cretainly CAN), but whether or not you had the means to APPLY your hoax... and then the question would become, if you COULD get it uploaded to Google maps, then why do it and NOT go to the mainstream media with the sighting?

There is more to creating a hoax than simply manipulating photos.

Because there are so many of these, the big question you should ask yourself is this: If it IS a hoax, was the payoff worth the effort?
Posted by Jonathan Lowry  in  Raleigh, NC  on  Mon Mar 20, 2006  at  10:13 AM
The pay-off is worth the effort...depending on where you hang your hat. My commenting is not to make fun of anyone's personal beliefs, or to make light of your intelect. Simply to show how easily people can be fooled by technology with the supplied link to my most recent image. i do actually believe that we are not olone in the Universe...just not convinced by a blurry dot in the middle of an image!
Posted by 3d artist  in  USA  on  Tue Mar 21, 2006  at  12:43 AM
Commenting is no longer available for this post.
All text Copyright © 2014 by Alex Boese, except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved.