Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:15 pm Post Subject: Silver Orb Captured on Google Satellite Map?
Hi all,
Thousands of Silver Orbs have been captured on video and still cameras over the years, but here's a first, what may be an Orb captured from above. There may be some mundane explanation for these images, but we haven’t seen anything compelling as yet...
Once these pics were published, people started finding others...
The satellite technology, which captured this image, is a free service offered by Google since early April this year at: http://maps.google.com/maps It is apparently part of the package that Google acquired when it bought digital map maker Keyhole Corp. about six months ago. The map service initially is limited to North America, with images covering roughly half the United States.
I snapped this image on 8 Jan 05 at 10:48 am from my back yard here in New Zealand. First real blue sky we have seen in this neck of the woods for weeks with several CT's overhead which I photographed. I noticed an "Orb" shaped anomaly (right end of CT) in this image after download. I took several shots of this same CT in succession using the continuous shoot mode on my Nikon D70 DSLR, with the anomaly appearing only in this one frame. It was shot in NEF RAW & JPEG copy mode. The pictured image has been resized from 3008 x 2000 to 640 x 426. The inserts have been cropped and layered into the resized image from the RAW image. Photo details; Aperture Priority, Focal Length 35 mm, F/11, Shutter Speed 1/640 sec, ISO 800(?) I have discounted birds, insects, the moon, balloons, dust and camera faults.
An interesting image whatever the anomaly may be. Perhaps some of your readers may have an opinion.
- Anonymous
I read the article and viewed the satellite images on Rense and the other associated sites last night. I was amazed with the similarities between the featured anomaly and one I unwittingly photographed whilst photographing a chemtrails on 8 Jan 2005.
I emailed the Rense site my images but they were never published. Last night I emailed him and pointed out the similarities between the anomalous objects and the image I took is now featured on his site.
I also posted the image to the ChemtrailCentral site (before mysteriousnewzealand was heard about) which initiated a little bit of discussion. For sake of ease I have taken some of the highlight of this discussion from the thread and reproduced them here. My comments are in GREEN and questions and comments from other thread users are in BROWN:
My initial Post to ChemtrailCentral on 9 Jan 2005 was as follows.
I snapped this image today 8 Jan 05 at 10:48 am from my back yard. First real blue sky we have seen in this neck of the woods for weeks with several CT’s overhead which I photographed. I noticed an “Orb” shaped anomaly (right end of CT) in this image after download. I took several shots of this same CT in succession using the continuous shoot mode on my Nikon D70 DSLR, with the anomaly appearing only in this one frame. It was shot in NEF RAW & JPEG copy mode. The pictured image has been resized from 3008 x 2000 to 640 x 426. The inserts have been cropped and layered into the resized image from the RAW image. Photo details; Aperture Priority, Focal Length 35 mm, F/11, Shutter Speed 1/640 sec, ISO 800. I must say I was rather excited when I first noticed this “Orb” in my image and have discounted birds, insects, the moon, balloons etc. After some pondering and further investigation I concluded that the only other plausible possibility was that the “Orb” may have been a petal from the flowering native Kanuka tree seen in the lower right hand corner of the image. I have included a photo of a Kanuka flower for interest sake. My excitement quickly dwindled away but I soon regained it after shooting another strange object (unseen to me) later in the day. I will post that photo shortly.
Response to a comment from Thermit about the images in my initial post:
Thanks Thermit. With these particular photographs there are probably a number of plausible reason other than these objects being Orbs, UAV’s, UFO’s or of extraterrestrial nature. Now don’t get me wrong here, I am not a sceptic in these matters, there is so much overwhelming photographic evidence and the corroborated testimony of countless witnessess amassed worldwide to deny that strange phenomena are sharing our airspace at will. This cannot and should not be ignored particularly by our science community.
However, in the case of my photos above, seeing is believing. Prior to and after taking these images I had been scanning the heavens with my trusty old 10x40 binnos and never saw anything unusual, nor did I whilst composing the photo shots. I am waiting for the day that I physically see and photograph one of these things.
You may well have read it but I’ve included a link to an article on the Rense site about BLURFO’s, I found it very informative from a photographic perspective if you look beyond the author’s obvious scepticism, I urge all budding sky photographers to read it.
Although it is quite possible that the object is a speck of dust on your lens there are some things to consider. In the case of a Blurfo, I would expect that the object wouldn't appear as sharp as it does. Furthmore, the petal theory seems rather weak since the object has an unusual amount of symmetry to it. It looks "man-made" since it has a uniform shape. If you take a look at the flower there is quite a bit of variation in the shape. Lastly, I had seen an object, with my unaided eyes, last month which looked VERY similar, in Van Nuys, CA along with three other people. I was at a park, bright and sunny day, clear sky and notice these people staring at an object in the sky, it was mid-day and no one could make out what it was. They asked for my opinion and I stated that it was a balloon, I wasn't about to delve into UFOs. However, in my opinon it didn't seem like any balloon that I was familiar with. I'm a glider pilot and am quite familiar with thermals and how they behave and I have released balloons on my own. In general, balloons tend to drift with air currents and there is a noticable decrease in the size of the balloon over time. This object was stationary, unusually stationary, it didn't drift nor sway and it's size remained unaltered for longer than I was willing to keep staring at it, over 15 min.[/i]
A response from Catnip57:
The picture of the object posted by Azimuth almost looks like a giant round pearl... it's definately not flower petals.... And no way could it be a balloon...
If anyone wants to see a lot more examples of these unusual objects being observed near chemtrails all you have to do is click the search images link and type in UFO's... There are over 150 pictures of all kinds of unusual objects photographed near chemtrails...
My response to Kestrel & Catnip57: Posted 14 Jan 2005-05-18
Being the inquisitive person I am I decided to make a few photographic comparisons of the “UFO” against the Kanuka petals featured in my first post in this thread. To do this I have used 2 Kanuka petals from the same tree as control samples which I then photographed. There have been no post photographic manipulations of the NEF (Nikon) RAW images. The original images have been copied, enlarged, cropped and resized to obtain the inserts. Various filters have then been applied to the inserts using Photo Shop. Here is what I did;
• In the column marked “UFO”: I used the original RAW file from which I obtained the 400% enlargement insert and applied various filters to it. The filters are marked in the left hand margin of the photographic collage.
• In the column marked “Control 1”: I obtained a petal from my Kanuka tree, in doing so I attempted to find the most symmetrical petal I could pluck from the tree. I then placed it onto a blue ceramic tile and photographed it from approx 2 feet distance. I adjusted my camera to manual focus and deliberately adjusted it so the petal was just out of focus. I used the RAW image quality setting on my camera. I then enlarged the RAW image of the Control 1 petal to the approximate size of the “UFO” inset.
The same filters were then applied to the image (insert) as close to the same settings as that of the “UFO” insert.
• In the column marked “Control 2”: I obtained another petal from my Kanuka tree as my 8 yo son decided to feed the original Control 1 Kanuka petal to our cockatiels whilst I had my back turned.
I again photographed the petal against the blue tile but this time at a distance of about 18 feet. The camera was set in focus in this instance.
I repeated the same steps and applied the same filters to this image as outlined above.
quote:
Kestrel
Although it is quite possible that the object is a speck of dust on your lens there are some things to consider. In the case of a Blurfo, I would expect that the object wouldn't appear as sharp as it does. Furthmore, the petal theory seems rather weak since the object has an unusual amount of symmetry to it. It looks "man-made" since it has a uniform shape. If you take a look at the flower there is quite a bit of variation in the shape.
Kestrel, you raise a valid point about dust on the lens. I can almost rule that out as I am very particular about keeping my lenses/camera equipment clean. I also shot several continuous photos of the same CT in about a 2 second period and the “UFO” only appears in the one shot, seemingly above the CT. Also ruled out lens flare/sun strike as the sun was behind my right shoulder and high.
I have checked out my lens/CCD for defects using the old white card/black card, out of focus method (picks up dust, dirt & defects when the images downloaded/developed) it checked out fine.
However this does not totally rule out other things like artefacts/motes etc associated with digital photography.
In conclusion
• The “UFO” unfiltered image is symmetrical and has the appearance of a pearl both in shape and shading (great analogy by Catnip57.)
• As pointed out by Kestrel the “UFO” image is relatively sharp by comparison with many other images seen elsewhere. This is probably owing to the relatively fast ISO/ shutter speed I was using.
• The “UFO” image maintains that pearl like 3 dimensional quality and shape even with the various filters applied.
• It appears to be reflecting light.
• Although the general outline and contour of the “UFO” and petals appear very similar at first glance, on closer inspection they are in fact much different in shape.
• The petals images are flat and 2 dimensional in appearance, particularly with the base relief and emboss filters applied to them.
If there is anyone out there who is capable of conducting a proper analysis of digital images, I will gladly forward the RAW images (5.04 MB) them if interested.
A response from Catnip57: Posted 16 Jan 2005-05-18
Azimuth.... are you by chance a professional photographer? Your knowledge and use of all the different filters that you’ve used here gives the impression that you’re very experienced with this type of photography.... So I’m hoping you’ll be able to explain in a bit more detail what some of the purposes of these filters are.
I have some questions about some of the results seen.
#1 ... In the Find Edge pictures why does it appear that the edges of the UFO are so obscure and hard to define as compared to the edges of the petals? Could this perhaps be due to the distance of the objects from the camera??
#2 In the Emboss pictures.... why does the UFO appear to be depressed and the petals appear raised?
#3 Now in Glowing Edges.... there is definitely a big difference in the colors.... The UFO has almost no glowing edge and the petals do.... especially Control 1.... Obviously this has to do with the distance here again right? I notice that Control 2 is a bit fuzzier than Control 1.... I would assume that it’s because Control 2 is 18 feet away... If we follow that logic then of course the edges of the UFO would seem to disappear since it’s obviously further away.
#4.....The pictures I find most interesting are the Solarized ones... In the UFO, I see about 3 different colors. The darkest color in the center seems to correspond to the brightest light on the Pearl like UFO... then the colors fade to lighter tones.... It seems that a solarize filter measures the different levels of light (brilliance) by making the lightest parts appear in the darkest colors... Is this how those filters work? In Control 1 it looks totally dark with just the edges being light... Control 2 is similar to Control 1 in some respects except that some of the colors resemble the UFO... mainly the red tones and the yellow edges.. .......
I think the one thing that stands out most in the UFO picture, is that it appears to be reflecting light ... it appears more 3 dimensional, the control subjects look flat.
There must be some way to get an idea of how big the UFO object actually is, but I’m not sure of the method used to determine this.... it seems that it would have to be a rather large object since most chemtrails are thousands of feet up in the sky... and yet people are getting shots of these strange objects all the time. One theory I’ve had is that these objects could be some type of monitoring device.... but exactly who is doing the monitoring is still a mystery.
Anyway... Keep up the good work... you never know but you might catch one of these things flying a lot lower and then you’ll catch some really interesting details about the structure of these objects..
Response from Kestrel: Posted 17 Jan 2005-05-18
The one thing that I didn't mention is the apparent shadow. I'm a graphic artist and work with various 2D and 3D graphic programs and the "orb" is definitely casting a shadow implying a 3D object with the light source coming from the top. Notice how the relatively 2D petal objects don't cast a similar shadw. Dust on a lens or a digital artifact wouldn't have a highlighted and shadowed region. This is definitely and object and not an artifact.
My response to Catnip & Kestrel
Hi Catni57,
You have asked some great questions, some of them are pretty technical and probably outside my range of current expertise. However I will try to respond to them the best I can. These are my opinions only.
quote:
Azimuth.... are you by chance a professional photographer? Your knowledge and use of all the different filters that you’ve used here gives the impression that you’re very experienced with this type of photography.... So I’m hoping you’ll be able to explain in a bit more detail what some of the purposes of these filters are.
No I am not a professional photographer and never have been, I’m purely amateur. (I took that as a compliment though, so thanks). I do have an interest in photography, particularly digital photography and the freedom it gives you to create at minimal cost compared to film format photography. I might add I believe film format photography is the better way to go particularly for this type of photography. Fakes and forgeries can easily be weeded out by close examination and analysis of the negatives. Negatives are easily enlarged with little loss of quality/resolutions/clarity etc compared to digital images which quickly pixelate on enlargement. Digital images can easily be manipulated and doctored and I believe pretty difficult to analyse. Basically digital photography is a hobby which I started about eighteen months ago. I like scenery shots and enjoy learning and trying to better my photographic skills. I am fascinated by CTs and photograph them at every opportunity.
quote:
I have some questions about some of the results seen.
#1 ... In the Find Edge pictures why does it appear that the edges of the UFO are so obscure and hard to define as compared to the edges of the petals? Could this perhaps be due to the distance of the objects from the camera??
The Find Edge filter has many uses, primarily it is used to located/determine the edges of an image. I used this filter to locate and compare the outside edges of the “UFO” & petals. I presume the difference between obscure and hard edges does have a lot to do with distance, colour quality and focus of the items in the images.
quote:
#2 In the Emboss pictures.... why does the UFO appear to be depressed and the petals appear raised?
The Emboss filter makes the selected items appear raised or stamped by suppressing the colour within the images and traces the edges with black. I used this to see if it better defined the overall shape of the images.
quote:
#3 Now in Glowing Edges.... there is definitely a big difference in the colors.... The UFO has almost no glowing edge and the petals do.... especially Control 1.... Obviously this has to do with the distance here again right? I notice that Control 2 is a bit fuzzier than Control 1.... I would assume that it’s because Control 2 is 18 feet away... If we follow that logic then of course the edges of the UFO would seem to disappear since it’s obviously further away.
The Glowing Edges filter added radiance around the outside edges of the object, giving it the appearance of a glow. I was not particularly interested in the glow effect, if you look within the glow to the inside edge of the glow you will see the outside edge of the object. I used this to see if it better defined the objects edge and overall shape. The strong glow in the petal images are probably again caused by the close distance from the lens and the solid tile background the petals were photo’d against.
quote:
#4.....The pictures I find most interesting are the Solarized ones... In the UFO, I see about 3 different colors. The darkest color in the center seems to correspond to the brightest light on the Pearl like UFO... then the colors fade to lighter tones.... It seems that a solarize filter measures the different levels of light (brilliance) by making the lightest parts appear in the darkest colors... Is this how those filters work? In Control 1 it looks totally dark with just the edges being light... Control 2 is similar to Control 1 in some respects except that some of the colors resemble the UFO... mainly the red tones and the yellow edges.. .......
Yes I totally agree.
quote:
There must be some way to get an idea of how big the UFO object actually is, but I’m not sure of the method used to determine this.... it seems that it would have to be a rather large object since most chemtrails are thousands of feet up in the sky... and yet people are getting shots of these strange objects all the time. One theory I’ve had is that these objects could be some type of monitoring device.... but exactly who is doing the monitoring is still a mystery.
The altitude can be worked out relatively easily if a few factors are known like the ground distance and the inclination.
To work out the size of the “UFO” would be a bit more difficult.
Here’s what I do know:
Exactly where I was when I took the photos
The approximate Ground Distance to where the trail was located = 4000 metres
The angle in degrees from camera to the CT = 60 Degrees as determined using the inclinometer on my trusty old
Compass
What I needed to know was the approximate size of the “UFO” in comparison to the size of a celestial body of known size such as the sun or moon
This was going to be difficult considering that I never actually saw the “UFO” and only had a Photo to judge by.
Thank goodness for the Internet. I went searching for some formulae to assist me working this out and stumbled across a great site called UFO Tools which should be of interest to everyone in this forum. Lots of great tools like the UFO Size Estimator and Real Time satellite Tracker. Here is the link:
Armed with the figures above and a "guestimated" size of the “UFO” as determined by UFO Size Estimator of 0.125 degrees Mean Lunar width (I used a conservative estimation of “UFO” size) Here are the results I obtained.:
Distance = 8,000 metres (26,246 feet) to the CT
Altitude = 6,928 metres (22,730 feet)
Size of “UFO” = 9.4 metres (30.85 feet) if above CT
There are many variables like the "UFO" may have been much closer or further away.
Have a play around with the figures in UFO Tools, it’s quite fascinating.
Here is the image of the anomalous object caught on satellite camera
John,sorry for the long post above. Seems you beat me to the gun in your last post. I had been working on my previous post for a couple of hours and did not realise you had posted part of my story until after I had sent it and checked the thread. :oops: :oops:
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:06 pm Post Subject:
Hi Azimuth,
Quote:
Seems you beat me to the gun in your last post. I had been working on my previous post for a couple of hours and did not realise you had posted part of my story until after I had sent it and checked the thread.
:D Yeah, that’s happened to me also at times. I worked so long on a post to a photography forum once that before I could submit it two other guys had already put up posts saying exactly what I'd written - so I scrapped it. :cry:
Your above post is terrific. An excellent example of the scientific approach of caution and examination of all the possibilities. One we all should carve into our computer monitors as a reminder. Something like this:
Quote:
The Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the Universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
If the hypothesis needs to be modified repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
But how can you apply scientific methodology to these little blighters? Your two images are top quality, very sharp so they must have been at relatively low altitude, or large. I note you estimate the altitude of the silver orb at:
Quote:
Altitude = 6,928 metres (22,730 feet)
Size of “UFO” = 9.4 metres (30.85 feet) if above CT
It may, of course, have been lower and thus smaller, how would you know? To our knowledge, we have never managed to capture a silver orb though we've photographed at least a hundred white orbs, many discs and a number of other things. They seem to be a different species to the silver variety. I've seen some size estimates of the white orbs of about three metres, that seems about right. Having seen the Google Sat map images I wonder if silver orbs are some form of surveillance device...
But what can we make of the white orbs when some hundreds of them are seen together at times - and interact with each other and the discs in a decidedly non-machine manner...
Well, all we can do is keep observing and gathering info and hope that sometime in this lifetime we can make sense of it all. :? 8-[
…..the scientific approach of caution and examination of all the possibilities. One we all should carve into our computer monitors as a reminder. Something like this:
The Scientific Method
1. Observe some aspect of the Universe.
2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
If the hypothesis needs to be modified repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
John, very wise advice, and great methodology.
Quote:
But how can you apply scientific methodology to these little blighters? Your two images are top quality, very sharp so they must have been at relatively low altitude, or large. I note you estimate the altitude of the silver orb at:
Altitude = 6,928 metres (22,730 feet)
Size of “UFO” = 9.4 metres (30.85 feet) if above CT
It may, of course, have been lower and thus smaller, how would you know?......
Quite correctly pointed out John. These were estimates gained from the physical facts known to me at the time and some educated guesswork from the featured photograph. For instance I new the approximate linear distance (ground distance) to the CT and the angle of elevation as determined by inclinometer. The size of the object was questimated in Mean Lunar Width using the tools as described in my previous post.
Yes there are many variables therefore little weight can be afforded to the size of the anomaly. However I can quite confidently say the featured chemtrail was at an approximate altitude of 22,730 feet!!!!
The point I was trying to make was that all serious CT observers should familiarise themselves with this basic math formula as it is very handy for estimating CT altitudes under certain circumstances.
Quote:
Well, all we can do is keep observing and gathering info and hope that sometime in this lifetime we can make sense of it all. :?
I absolutely agree, you and Melody have made a fantastic start by creating a central base for our observations etc.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 2:17 am Post Subject:
Azimuth,
I'm going to have to sharpen up my mathmatical abilities I can see that. It's not my strong point at this time. :?
Quote:
Yes there are many variables therefore little weight can be afforded to the size of the anomaly. However I can quite confidently say the featured chemtrail was at an approximate altitude of 22,730 feet!!!!
If I'm not mistaken, that's a very low altitude for that type of trail. Eighth January 2005 you claim? Now, many scientists would say you must be mistaken, this type of trail surely is not possible at that altitude and at that time of the year. Too low, too warm. If I were a scientist, I would have no choice but to debunk your claims entirely.
Lucky for you you took the pic in Raw format and that's impossible to fake and the embeded exif info proves when you took it...
All joking aside, it's amazing how much of this stuff would be entirely dismissed without investigation by those who know better. :roll:
Have you seen this method of calculating the altitude of aircraft using a digital camera/? I must try to understand it - an inclinometer like yours would be useful...
http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/digital.html
Yes indeed I can hear the debunkers sharpening the knives on the old oil stone already.
While they are at it perhaps any debunkers would like to explain away the image below which shows a Chem Cloud benneath alto cumulus cloud which form at heights of up to 6,500 (23,000 feet).
Have you seen this method of calculating the altitude of aircraft using a digital camera/? I must try to understand it - an inclinometer like yours would be useful...
Just had a quick peek at the above site and it looks very interesting.
I'll reply tomorrow after I have had a good look at it.
