Weird image from Google Maps

[madhi19]

I can actuly see my own apartement block check this out. and I can even date the picture it about a year old at least they build four houses just in front since then. It the big block in the midlle of the map at the right of the street with nothing but three on the left side of the street. There an even bigger block upper on the same street. <br />http://www.google.ca/maps?f=q&hl=fr&q=Qu%C3%A9bec+city&t=k&om=1&ll=46.855987,-71.205697&spn=0.001783,0.003616

 

[geneftw]

Satellites aren't spheres, are they?<br />As high as that Imaging satellite is, I don't think that could be a kid's balloon.<br />A hot air balloon? They're usually more colorful.<br />A UFO? Doubt it....No such luck.<br />Smoke? Nah...NO wind drift.<br />A weather balloon? That's the most likely idea I can come up with.

 

[qso1]

Arial image does not seem likely because when zooming in, the object moves as the ground does and you reach altitudes well beyond that of aircraft when you zoom out enough.<br /><br />I'm sure there is a logical, mundane explanation for it but firstoff. I suspect its not a lens imperfection because when I zoom in or out, the object changes in size consistant with the ground. If it were a lens defect, it should remain the same size.<br /><br />I would say its not a balloon but thats based on the focus. The object appears to be too blurry with respect to its surroundings. Consider a balloon would be no more than a few thousand feet AGL while the satellite is hundreds of miles AGL. Therefore, the focal relationship between object and ground level objects should be about the same.<br /><br />If it is a balloon, some other explanation, perhaps the motion of the balloon could explain the focal discrepancies. But there is another problem.<br /><br />Image number 8 and 9 show a light source at its brightest opposite the direction of the sun. The sun is to the south south west in all the images up to number 9. The object brightness is consistent with a southwesterly sun direction until image 8 and 9 which show the sun still illuminating the ground from slightly southwest while the brightest part of the object is now north.<br /><br />All the images prior to number 10 are of the Palm Beach Fl area. Number 10 is near San Bernadino with sun light appearing to be about the same as Palm Beach indicating the satellite took these images on the same pass.<br /><br />Image 11 is an image from a different pass of the satellite, that is, taken during another orbit passing over California area, Live Oak resevoir. The shadows show a different sun angle. The Palm Beach/San Bernadino images were taken in the early afternoon while the resevoir was imaged in the late morning. I saw no evidence of the object in the resevoir image.<br /><br />Image 12, again San Bernadino which shows the same sun angle as t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Google Maps (as opposed to Google Earth) ads a watermark to its images.

 

[qso1]

That would explain how the mark changes size when zooming but does not explain why Google maps thought such a small water mark would be effective at preventing or discouraging copywrite infringement.<br /><br />I mentioned small because you have to zoom very close to see it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[xmo1]

<br /><br />Here's a flying saucer in Afghanistan <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>DenniSys.com</p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

It's not the watermarks from Yahoo, as these are simply added to the third party images that Yahoo have. If this was a watermark, then why aren't all watermarks like this? So it's obviously a part of the original images.<br /><br />After reading through this thread and looking at all the images, my conclusion is that it must be a slight problem with the imaging device (CCD chip or whatever) on the satellite. Maybe a few pixels are bad and always return absolute white or something like that.<br /><br />Then the algorithm used to blend seamlessly between high- and low-resolution areas has smudged the area out, trying to create a smooth transition between the bad pixels and the rest of the image. Why it seems to be blue on one side, I have no idea (maybe there are some white pixels next to some blue ones, or maybe it's a result from how the smoothing algorithm works in some way).<br /><br /><br />By looking only at the first picture posted, it seemed likely that it was a real object (had to be at an extreme altitude because it seemed to be so out of focus). The white and blue by chance matched the sun's direction and many (myself included) used that to conclude that it had to be a real object - most likely a weather balloon. But in other images the "illumination" is wrong. In some images it's just part of a sphere - the smudging algorithm was obviously interrupted by the details of the trees close to the bad pixels.<br /><br />As these things seem to pop up all over the place (someone said more or less evenly spaced grid?) it seems very likely that it is a small malfunction on the satellite, smudged out in post processing.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[usmcsf0331]

Google Earth is an awesome program. We use it all the time to get arials of places we are training at. I found Area 51, pretty cool stuff. Took a bit of scrolling though the desert, but definately found it. Anyone know of any other fun 'top secret' type places to look at and approximately where they are?

 

[barobrain]

This brings up a good point I was thinking about. Is it a good idea to have images of our military bases?<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=33611&ll=27.856872,-82.505178&spn=0.026294,0.053902&t=k&om=1<br /><br />This is macdill airforce in Tampa, FL. I looked for it and thought they would blur it out. But it is all there. <br /><br />I would like to see some interesting links of top secret sites that were photographed though. <br /><br />Also, a side note: I found area 51 simply by typing area 51 into the search.