|
Google Sattelite UFO Photo
|
Posted By:
Winona
in USA
May 12, 2005
|
This <a href="http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=10318" title="link">link</a> 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
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 01:29 PM
Tasteless and Offensive strikes again! |
David B.
|
Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 | 02:43 PM
Maegan, try: -
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748308,-80.076953&spn=0.005440,0.008283&t=k&hl=en
If you need to navigate to it, its...
1) goto maps.google.com,
2) search for zip '33409',
3) zoom & pan to the north shore of Lake Mangonia,
4) zoom until you can see 39th & Adams,
5) click 'Satellite'. |
Rena
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 11:09 AM
maybe there have some interferrence...!!
that make that location blur...!!
electromagnet..??
forcefield...??
or US secret defence system...?? |
Hairy Houdini
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 11:21 AM
It's a Ramonian Surveillance Drone. I get them over my crib all the time. I warned you a couple of months ago, but NO-oo... You'll see more of them as the Terran solstice nears. You may as well ignore them, cuz what's done is done, and there's not a damn thing you here on Earth can do about it. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 11:40 AM
It seems Alex has also posted this on his blog.
It is a little bit odd. And it doesn't seem to be something on the lense like I thought, b/c it gets larger as you zoom in. (Alex's image was still.) Quite bizarre indeed. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 | 12:08 PM
...I did figure out how to work it so I can see my house. Neato. |
JR
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 | 06:04 PM
Check this out .. about 10 km west of the first ufo there is a 2nd one ,
check this out
First ufo <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en">Google 1st ufo</a>
2nd ufo<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.750593,-80.188565&spn=0.019140,0.030470&t=k&hl=en">Google 2nd UFO</a> |
John Sawyer
|
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 | 05:36 AM
Maegan:
Of course the artifact would get bigger as you zoom in--the Google map satellite photos are just that--still photos--so everything captured on a photo will get bigger if you zoom in, including things that were on the lens at the time the photo was taken.
But that aside, the artifact isn't something on the lens--that's not how things on lenses look.
Winona's idea is interesting--perhaps the area was blurred deliberately? But if so, why is the artifact apparently illuminated by sunlight from the same direction as the sunlight that illuminates the buildings on the ground? |
CalmLikeBomb
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 | 11:42 AM
You think its been bad, check this out...there's three and they make an almost perfect triangle.
Pyramids all over the world, perfect stone spheres in the shape of triangles in Central America, and now this...hmmm
http://www.forsakendeathknights.com/googleufos.html |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 | 02:18 PM
Any three points make a triangle, what's your point? |
David B.
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 | 03:04 PM
If you googlemap to the intersection of Jamaica Drive and Palmwood Road you will find another of these UFOs.
Now (at a decent magnification) move due west, i.e. go left. There is another around 151st Lane North.
Keep going left. There is a half of one just the other side of the Bee Line Highway (over the Pratt-Whitney complex).
Keep going left. Just before the high-res images run out there is another half of one still over the Pratt-Whitney complex.
So whatever they are, either they've got cloaking technology or they ain't solid.
Guess which explanation the UF(ap)ologists will believe? |
Nickm
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 07:40 AM
actually, i think the reason there are half things on here is that its where the image is put together from smaller images, the images are taken at differnt times, so whatever was on the first image, wasnt on the second one, as in, its moved or been removed depeding on what it is |
Snowy
in aeternum
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 10:05 AM
Maybe these are water towers?
but that doesn't explain how they are blurred...
*creepy music*
I think these are added in by some prankster. |
Maegan
in Tampa, FL - USA
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 | 10:31 AM
They're not water towers... |
David B.
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 06:29 AM
actually, i think the reason there are half things on here is that its where the image is put together from smaller images, the images are taken at differnt times, so whatever was on the first image, wasnt on the second one, as in, its moved or been removed depeding on what it is
This is not obviously true of the two halFOs(tm) mentioned (<a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jamaica+drive+palmwood+road&ll=26.902653,-80.302720&spn=0.007257,0.010916&t=k&hl=en">here</a> and <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jamaica+drive+palmwood+road&ll=26.901248,-80.304008&spn=0.014514,0.021832&t=k&hl=en">here</a>). The 'objects' appear to blend into the background rather than be cropped. |
David B.
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 06:32 AM
Sorry, the second one's <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jamaica+drive+palmwood+road&ll=26.902481,-80.357601&spn=0.007257,0.010916&t=k&hl=en">here</a>. |
John Sawyer
|
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 | 01:11 PM
Has anyone tried to ask Google if they know what these things are, or asked Google whether they can ask whoever supplies the images to Google?
The halFOs(tm) (nice to see you registered that trademark properly, so someone doesn't steal it!) aren't cut off due to different photos stitched together, since each halFO is entirely contained within a single photo, as shown by the shadows-- stitched-together photos will show obvious shadow diferences and a dividing line (at least most of them).
Taking another look at these, it looks almost as if these are droplets on the inner surface of the glass covering that protects the satellite's camera lens from the vacuum of space. Even the halFOs could be such droplets, since they could look like they're cut in half only because they're simply more of a streaky droplet than a perfectly round one. Maybe the satellite needs an interior window washer. |
Jim K.
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 | 01:42 AM
These are clearly not a defect in the lens or water droplets as previously suggested. That would be a valid conclusion if it were not for the incredible distance at which these photos were taken. Have you ever noticed that you can take a photo from behind a fence, like that of a baseball diamond, and if you're focused on one of the players or anything else in the distance, you cannot even tell that the fence was in your way, due to the focus angle. A droplet of water would certainly not show up as these "anom-Oleys"(tm) do. They would be virtually undetectable when viewing the entirety of the picture, but would render entire cities substaintially blurred, not small objects like houses or water towers. Again, due to the focus, it can't be something as low as a water tower. My guess, due to the degree of blur, is that these objects are aproximately 20,000 ft off the ground. Perhaps even higher. Cloud cover rarely sinks below 10,000 ft and we have examples elsewhere of clouds quite clear. For these objects, UFO's and halFO's(tm) to be so significantly blurred yet as well defined as they are, they have to be at about that alititude. What they are, I don't know. Ufo's, halFO's(tm), planted gov't items to distract the wary from the "real" unexplained, just like Area51. After all, everyone knows the real place with Ufo's and high tech alien gadgetry is in Area 52! |
SpamMeNot
|
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2005 | 03:56 PM
Perhaps someone spilled (insert your beverage of choice here) on the scanner when they digitized the satellite images. |
David B.
|
Posted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 | 04:52 PM
What they are, I don't know. Ufo's, halFO's(tm), planted gov't items to distract the wary from the "real" unexplained, just like Area51. After all, everyone knows the real place with Ufo's and high tech alien gadgetry is in Area 52!
"Oh, they're hiding alien technology at Area X, you know!" Hah! Area-shmarea, they're using that alien technology to compress dimensions, silly! It's line-segment 51 we ought to be looking for! |
John Sawyer
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 01:05 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.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 04:10 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.
|
Posted: Mon Jul 18, 2005 | 04:48 PM
Hey, has anyone found any crop circles yet? That would be a cool find! |
David B.
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 | 03:38 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 | 05:24 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
|
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 | 10:50 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 | 07:15 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 | 02:00 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 | 02:04 PM
Maybe they're place markers for assembling the full image from the individual photos. |
John Sawyer
|
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2005 | 12:06 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
|
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 | 12:12 PM
am I the only one who sees some faded map-text <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jamaica+drive+palmwood+road&ll=26.902481,-80.357601&spn=0.007257,0.010916&t=k&hl=en">Here</a> and <a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en">here</a> 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.
|
Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 | 10:25 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
|
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 | 03:55 PM
I |
Marnie
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 | 05:59 PM
i think it is real! :gulp: |
Changis
|
Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 | 06:03 PM
Kid: i'd like an update when you're done 😊 sounds interesting 😊 |
Rohit
|
Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 | 11:57 AM
The UFO thing that you guys are discussing about can be a simple object like a Gas Balloon.What do you think? |
Konan
|
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2005 | 11:48 PM
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
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 | 05:14 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
|
Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 | 05:37 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!
<a href="http://www.paradigmclock.com/X-Conference/X-Conference.htm">X-conference</a>
<a href="http://www.exopolitics.com/">Expolitics</a>
<a href="http://www.disclosureproject.org/">Disclosure Project</a>
This are real evidence and many more countries are joining this project!! |
phil mcbaggypants
|
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2006 | 10:09 PM
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 |
3d artist
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 | 10:26 PM
Here ya go...ten minutes work in 3D program...blurry focal point with disk in the forefront..shadowa lined up sun. let me have it! |
3d artist
|
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 | 10:29 PM
Okay..here ya go....blurry transmission with disk nearest to focal point...lighting/shadows in line with sun angle...don't get me wrong!....I do believe that we are not alone...just hate to see people get in an uproar over a sat.image that shows nothing. |
lacotta
|
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2006 | 04:41 PM
Yea.Maybe this satellite image doesnt show a UFO, but i saw identical UFO over my house. Without windows, just a metallic oval sphere. I took a photo 6 month ago...at first a could't believed. But is real, and very large too. |
Rena
|
Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2006 | 11:37 PM
maybe that is google satellite blind spot..?
or google satellite lens have some dirty thing ... :o..!! |
viper
|
Posted: Sat Jul 01, 2006 | 11:18 AM
hi guys
you can do much moe things with maps on google earth
you can zoom,view buildings in 3D search
and much more
i cant find something in area 51 and in google ufo 1 @homejoy
can somebody say exactly where it is?
sorry for english |
Bill
|
Posted: Sun Aug 20, 2006 | 10:02 PM
I haven't bothered to read all the posts and came by this by accident. I'm responding to Winona's question. I lived in West Palm Beach for over 27 years, I know the area of the 'ufo' and can tell you that there are only normal houses there. |
NV
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 | 01:55 PM
I've searched and searched and can't see a thing!! Please tell me where they are?! |
PL
|
Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 | 12:26 PM
Hi, The thread is years old, and google have updated the pictures since then. No UFO to see.
Dead thread. |
Country Boy
|
Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 | 09:36 AM
I think if aliens are out there they would have already come and suck out are brians |
John S
|
Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 | 01:14 AM
They HAVE been sucking out our brians--I don't know anybody named Brian currently. Where'd they all go? |
|
Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.
|
