UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2005 > May > May 23

Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? - Smith

From: James Smith <zeus001002.nul>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:49:40 -0400 (GMT-04:00)
Fwd Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:19:18 -0400
Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO? - Smith


>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 01:20:33 -0300
>Subject: Re: Google Maps Captures UFO?

>>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?

>>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.

I do not think it was a satellite photo.

>>More have been found in L.A.!!

>I couldn't get this URL to work. Is it clipped, maybe? It wasn't
>wrapped. Maybe the link has expired.

Links are at:

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

These I checked again and worked with Internet Explorer:

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.136710,-117.652073&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.137053,-117.555599&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en

>>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.

Ha! Give me raw images instead of these collages and I will
sit up and take notice.

>>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".

Its true that other governments have some nice satellites. But,
if there is a coverup, then the right people will be where they
need to be to do the covering up, whomever takes the photos.

>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.

I don't think it is a satellite. The resolution of satellites is
shown clearly when you go outside the urban areas. The urban
areas have the high resolution aircraft coverage. Terraserver
shows such images too. The resolution is great but they are not
satellites. Ask yourself, if they were all satellite images
wouldn't the entire Google map image for the whole nation be the
same resolution? They are not because the satellite image
resolution is relatively poor but the urban areas have had
aircraft photo overflights and that image collection is used
there.

>BTW - any luck with that "raw" feed?

Waiting..... Bureaucracies!




[ 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