From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 01:20:33 -0300 Fwd Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:49:32 -0400 Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? - Ledger >From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul> >To: ufoupdates.nul >Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 10:29:58 -0400 (GMT-04:00) >Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? >>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> >>To: ufoupdates.nul >>Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:11:59 -0300 >>Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? >>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. >Yes, I agree that most other such marks HAVE to be sharp. I was >really just parroting the guys assessment as best I could >remember it. Some said it was likely a drop on the camera lens >(I doubt this, it seems like there was just one aircraft based >photo at altitude which was merged with the satellite images of >the surrounding area). Some said it was some sort of watermark. >Someone even said they are thumbtacks. This assumes many photos >of the area and some sort of wallboard is used to hold them in >place when a photomosai is made. >>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. >Yeah, its odd. >>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? >We would have to know for sure how the photo was created. >I assumed it was 1 photo, so the parallax method doesn't work. I don't know if it was just one. But since most photo-capable satellites are in roughly north-south orbits and it takes 90 plus minutes for the next pass, parallax is highly unlikely. But how many shots are taken of the same area during the same pass. Would not something seen in shot [or scan] number one possibly be seen in shots number 2 and 3 if they are exposed close enough together to be seen on 2 and 3 then when they are put together as a mosaic the parallex would show the same one three times. >>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. >More have been found in L.A.!! >http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en I couldn't get this URL to work. Is it clipped, maybe? It wasn't wrapped. Maybe the link has expired. >Unless these identical objects are covering our skies over our >cities, it seems some pretty prosaic explanation it likely and >hardly worth our time to find out (unless you have nothing >better to do!). Too early I think for a prosaic explanation, unless you want to consider some possible connection to the UFO fleet theory. >Remember that the government is covering up everything about UFOs. If so, they are doing a piss-poor job of it. >So that means there should not be any images of UFOs in >these photos. As you know, not all satellites are controlled by the "gov". Is there any way we can determine which satellite[s] was/were used? Since you have determined that there are more of these in satellite shots of LA, then there are likely others as well. If the same satellite was used in each case chances are it has a glitch. You seem to have resources in that area. BTW - any luck with that "raw" feed?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp