UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 19

Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:11:59 -0300
Fwd Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 08:43:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? - Ledger


>From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 08:22:49 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
>Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO?

>>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:19:13 -0400
>>Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO?

>>Re. that silver sphere in the google maps satellite photo,

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

>>... to me the fuzziness doesn't look like 'out of focus'
>>fuzziness. The sphere itself does have a well defined outline,
>>which it wouldn't if it were simply out of focus.

>>Increasingly, it's beginning to look as if anti gravity
>>involves strong and perhaps new field types which interact with
>>gravity waves (per Tom Bearden for one) and it's quite likely
>>that the fuzzing in that photo was due to an advanced field type
>>rather than out of focus.


>The real analysis shows something less than an alien spacecraft.

>I agree with the work of the fewllow at the below links.

>http://www.flickr.com/photos/44276669.nul/13645955/

>This link shows the realtive position of each sphere on the
>image. A nice rectalinear layout.

>http://www.flickr.com/photos/48556057.nul/13647471/

>So the assessment that it is likely registration dots to
>match/patch images from different sources makes sense.

>The question is raised as to whether the images is actually a
>satellite images at all. I agree. If you look at Terraserver you
>will see that the images with the most detail are aircraft
>flyover images (usually over urban areas).

>So, without the original image, I wouldn't imagine

>to claim its an image of an alien craft.

>But it was pretty interesting.


Hi James,

If they are registration marks they are a fuzzy and imprecise
representation of same. Usually crosshairs or right angled marks
- reticles or graticules, Latin or Fr. - are scribed right into a
thin glass between lenses. Note Lunar photos, etc.

Why would this particular satellite - or aircraft - camera
resort to such an imprecise method? Additionally, some of the
white fuzzy dots are only half visible.

Not solved for me as yet.

How about a high altitude scientific balloon - 300-400 feet in
diameter, or smaller - hanging nearly motionless in the same
spot for an hour or so, with the aircraft shooting on different
east west tracks and getting parallex images of the same object
each time?

This would make the image appear to be in different places and
fuzzy due to the focal length if the balloon was thousands of
feet closer to the aircraft - if these are aircraft - as
platform shots.


Don Ledger




[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com