Weird image from Google Maps

[bobw]

Here is something very like it, due west just as bowlofpetunias said.<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748619,-80.190797&spn=0.004785,0.006663&t=k&hl=en <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

How come "2005" appears on the photo? Is there some post-processing modification of the pictures? Maybe the blob is an artifact of that process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Leovinus]

Notice the second blob is illuminated from two sides, not one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bobw]

On the way over to the next ship, er.. blob I saw several watermarks without the blob but that doesn't rule out the possiblilty that the blob is part of a larger watermark pattern.<br /><br />Does anybody recognize any landmarks which we could measure and compute the distance between the blobs? Something like how wide is a road or how big is a specific building? I can't find the size of the pixels anywhere on the map pages. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[najab]

All the images from Google maps have a watermark added to them. The 'anomalous image' (can't believe I'd say that, could ya?) isn't a processing artifact.

 

[najab]

Way ahead of you. I already emailed the Digital Globe people to ask if they could tell me the time and date that the image was acquired.

 

[najab]

I got a reply from Digital Globe:<br /><blockquote>Dear Adrian,<br /><br />Sorry to be humorous in my last email. I have spoken with several of our tech guys here at DigitalGlobe and their feeling is that this is a processing error and was not actually part of the original. Take a look at the following link:<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=34.134822,-117.603793&spn=0.0,0.0&t=k&hl=en<br /><br />You can see that in the upper portion of the aberration the road below is evident. If this were a solid object, the edges of it would be clearly defined as has occurred when we happen to image an airplane.<br /><br />Further, based on the physics behind remote sensing imagery, if this were a solid object it would likely appear in two locations in the image quite close by as each of the spectral bands of our satellite are imaged at slightly different (fractions of seconds) times. Hope this answers your questions.<br /><br />Best,<br />Brock<br /></blockquote><br /><br />So, they think it's a processing artifact, but aren't sure exactly how it got there.

 

[bowlofpetunias]

here's a bunch of the orbs.<br /><br /> Image 1. <br /> Image 2. <br /> Image 3. <br /> Image 4. <br /> Image 5. <br /> Image 6. <br /> Image 7. <br /><br />I'm not positive but I think the images come from AerialsExpress.com.<br />The above images seem to form an incomplete grid pattern.<br /><br />And more.<br /> Image 8. <br /> Image 9. <br /> Image 10. <br /> Image 11. <br /> Image 12. <br /> Image 13. <br /><br />There's more but the above is more than enough typing for me. <br />They could be a few things, water droplet, camera artifact, or processin

 

[najab]

Have a look at this. I think we're seeing what happens when there's missing data.

 

[kmarinas86]

Low resolution<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?q=28.38158+-81.55829&ll=28.368437,-81.549346&spn=0.032144,0.041757&t=k&hl=en<br /><br />maybe that's what it is.

 

[kauboi]

Yikes!!! It's an invasion!!!

 

[najab]

Yes. Not that at the boundary of the high and low res image you get the same "semi-transparent" appearance. Maybe that's how their image processing algorithm deals with lost data.

 

[Leovinus]

I moved a bit east of there and looked over KSC. Cool. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kmarinas86]

I noticed that the one in this picture has a hard edge<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33409&ll=26.748651,-80.074550&spn=0.005622,0.007875&t=k&hl=en<br /><br />While the other one is a linear gradient<br /><br />http://maps.google.com/maps?q=28.38158+-81.55829&ll=28.368437,-81.549346&spn=0.005010,0.007896&t=k&hl=en

 

[larper]

I figured it out. <br /><br />The first character of the watermark is a "copyright" character. The blob always appears where a watermark would appear. The blob is a massively blown up, copyright mark. It is an artifact of the watermarking process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Gee, it seems some one early in this thread had that same idea. Who was it? It will come to me....<br /><br />Was it......... no..............on the tip of my tongue........<br /><br />Just a minute, I know this....................................<br /><br />Well, I'll post when I can remeber.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(tee hee)<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[larper]

Yeah, I know you proposed it was a watermark. I am just suggesting exactly what it is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Its not a watermark. It's a tool utilized by an alien race of women who currently have a shortage of well endowed men who can propregate their species.<br /><br />The tool is actually a magnifying glass for checking out your Johnson, and if you make the grade they place you in a list for potential abductions.<br /><br />Sounds FUN?!?!?!?!? <br /><br />FYI.. If you need a magnifying glass to find your Johnson, then the probability of you making the list are dim.

 

[sinova]

"It's a tool utilized by an alien race of women who currently have a shortage of well endowed men who can propregate their species. . . . The tool is actually a magnifying glass for checking out your Johnson. . . .<br /><br />Close, but no cigar -- ! Actually, it's a race of near-sighted gay men checking you out transdimensionally with their Bi-focals.<br /><br />

 

[cedartree]

Looks like a neclace or a bracelet

 

[yevaud]

Ok, finally. A possible explanation:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">In the same column, I mentioned that Google Maps' satellite view of the vice presidential residence in Washington had been camouflaged with a protective thoroughness not applied to the White House, the Pentagon and other significant structures. It turns out that at least one other center of power has received similar treatment; zoom in on downtown Albany to see what it is. (A Google spokesman says that the company itself has never blurred or altered the photos but that it simply posts what it gets from "third parties.") It also turns out that a crystal-clear aerial view of every bit of the vice presidential compound is readily available - not on Google, but on another free, public, mainstream site. </font><br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/business/yourmoney/12techno.html?<br /><br />You think that there may merely be something there that they wanted to "hide" from people? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Normally,<br /><br />If public satellite photos are over areas that are classified, the imaging area is not available for publication. The images are just not there. The government get's really sticky about that...<br /><br />I wouldn't think that they would place "markers" all over the map to show "Important classified stuff exists right under this marker at the corner of John's and Trade streets." The image of that area, at the selected resolution, would not exist. ie: Not available.<br /><br />I've looked at Google's imagery and classified sites that I am familiar with are under the "image not available" category. ie: Google doesn't use opaque markers to mask them. They just don't publish the images.<br /><br />Now, if someone, somewhere, had modified contracts that said, for instance, all powerhouses, telephone exchanges, satellite nodes, military recruiting facilities and National Guard muster points, were to be blocked from all publically available satellite imagery due to the concerns brought about by 9/11.... it <b>might</b> be feasible that they would put opaques over existing, already publically available images. I haven't checked any though. I'd recommend taking a look at facilities you are familiar with that would fall under these guidelines. If you find markers, then you may have your answer.<br /><br />Personally, I like the original explanation. (Software glitch)<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[najab]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I mentioned that Google Maps' satellite view of the vice presidential residence in Washington had been camouflaged with a protective thoroughness not applied to the White House, the Pentagon and other significant structures.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Actually, the White House got an interesting treatment - the outline of the stucture is still there, but all details have been eliminated.

 

[soapbox_harry]

That's a mile or so north of the airport and it doesn't look like an aircraft. <br /><br />Think it could be a water tower? That's what it looks like to me.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#0000ff">Just another bitter clinger.....</font></strong> </div>

 

[skyeagle409]

Interesting! I'd better cover up my backyard from now on..