May 23, 2005

Unidentified Google Objects First there was this one. And then they found more evidence. What are they? We still don't know, but something is out there. [insert spooky music]
posted by mare 19 years ago
  • Angels.
  • It's Phil Klass.
  • Or James Randi.
  • I love that someone actually took the time to plot the points on a grid. That makes me very happy.
  • Spooge
  • Nut butter.
  • It's.... my fault. Sorry about that.
  • Yep, it’s spooge.
  • Clearly those are Jesus balls, people. It's rapture time. You fuckers are fixin' to burn. Me, I'm gonna be up in the sky, naked with every alien Jim Kirk ever sexed up.
  • Baby gravy.
  • Maybe a primitive watermarking scheme. Obvious that it is there but difficult to remove, to stop people from appropriating your data. The google logo found in one of those bubbles supports this hypothesis.
  • You may be right. All of my spooge is watermarked.
  • Refer to previous Monkeyfilter post for more info...
  • I'm going to go with condensation on the camera housing, like the last link suggested. In the left photo at the bottom of that post, you can kind of see through the spot, and it distorts the view behind it like a drop of water would. Also, the grid and line patterns make sense if it's something that moves with the plane that takes the photos.
  • I'm sorry, I spilled my cockpunch.
  • I hope hope hope that it's something completely cool and previously unsuspected by science, like aliens visiting, or spots generated by dreams, or random tears of gods, or ghosts of trees. But it never is, it's always something boring like condensation.
  • Looks likes a unicorn's house to me.
  • Jesus balls. BOOM.
  • middleclasstool: where I come from, we say Jesus Nuts. Yup, Jesus Nuts.
  • I told you your momma was so fat they could see her from outerspace! Nice to see she's be traveling though.
  • I think that they are cum shots from teenagers on viagra having sex.
  • Don't make me head over to the New Kids thread with Google-Bukkake.
  • They're shaded, with one side is lighter than the other. But the direction of shading doesn't match up with the direction of shadows on the ground (example). Unless the satellite taking the picture has a light source activated at the same time, condensation shading would be in the same direction as the shadows on the ground. (Most satellites aren't lit. When you see them from earth, that's from the sun shining on them.) But I can't concieve how these spots would be on the ground without using the same light source as the rest of the objects in the picture. The artifacts would have to be either in or near the source, or generated in development.
  • "Unless the satellite taking the picture has a light source activated at the same time.." Nope. No purpose for a light source on a satellite: it would be totally useless. No satellites to my knowledge have lights on 'em.
  • No satellites to my knowledge have lights on 'em.
    That's right, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE!!!! Everybody knows the Illuminatti satelites have lights on them!
  • OH NOES
  • Gee, it looks like the MIB have shut down Googlesightseeing. Seriously though, wouldn't condensation show up as a collection of drops or mist? This looks like one large drop.
  • Condensation.. in space? Methinketh not.
  • I think you mean to say: CONDENSATION... IN... SPA-A-A-ACE!!!!
  • I got a buck that says it's birdshit from a VERY industrious grackle. They shit on everything.
  • Best. Birdname. Ever.
  • And now UFCs, unidentified flying cars.
  • Stop identifying it! It'll cease to be a UFO! *covers ears*