UFO Landing Strip located on Google Earth?(vanity)

Google Earth ^ | 29 Jan 2008 | tulsa ramjet

[Tulsa Ramjet]

70 deg 09' 21.75" S 87 deg 45' 52.71" E

[Tulsa Ramjet]

you have no idea what this means.

Do you know WHY you can Google search Area 51 now????? Do you??? Its because THEY MOVED ALL THE STUFF!!

Maybe to places like this. I’m just surmising hear so forgive me for my excitement.

[xJones]

Do you know WHY you can Google search Area 51 now????? Do you??? Its because THEY MOVED ALL THE STUFF!!

I'm afraid you're out my league right now, but could you possibly do search for the missing WMD?

[SC Swamp Fox]

[Two men in black suits approach, one of them holds up a pen. There is a blinding flash.]

Now that I have gone there and looked for myself, the "object" appears on a mismatched boundary of two images. It appears that there is about a 5 mile wide stretch of "missing" data that the software tried to airbrush across.

Move along...there's nothing to see here.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

What about the bunkers that look like enlarged shoe treads?

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Just check this out and I’ll leave you alone:

Just north 83 miles, in a mountainous area (68 deg 56’ 31.14” S, 88 deg 00’ 21.68” E) is a “grill” type structure in the mountains.

Looks to be about 1.5 miles long and .5 mile wide. Looks like the indentations of the edge of a giant’s astronaut boot.

Now if you think that this is software airbrushing or aerial stitching, then my efforts have failed today.

[SC Swamp Fox]

That area is very low resolution, any number of things could cause that appearance. Clouds, drifting snow, shadows from the sun at an extreme angle, all of the above.

I love to browse on Google Earth, I've seen some pretty odd stuff (Usually highlighted by a bookmark.) This doesn't strike me as that unusual.

It is curious, bookmark it and keep an eye on it. They upload new, higher resolution images all the time.

[SC Swamp Fox]

I just spent a while mousing around that area looking at the elevation. It's a lot flatter that it appears but those "ridges" are on a gentle slope, they point downhill to the north. It "looks" like there is a ridgeline to the north, but the elevation data doesn't show one. It's probably a cloud, which is almost impossible to distinguish from snow when photographed from space.

In fact, that whole "mountainous area" appears to be pretty flat and gently sloping to the north northeast. I think we are looking mostly at a bunch of clouds.

[Slings and Arrows]

Helen Thomas never looked that good in her life.

[BenLurkin]

Got it thanks.

From 19 miles up would make that a really large feature!

[ChocChipCookie]

OK, I sent those Antarctica coordinates to a friend who does exactly what Google Earth does, satellite mapping. Here is what he said:

I assume you're looking at GoogleEarth? All of the landmasses displayed on the earth are pieced together imagery. Most have been taken from satellite but some is aerial imagery taken from a plane. Satellite imagery is obtained in strips as the sensors are opened and exposed over time, kind of like a flatbed scanner. Imagery satellites fly in orbits from North to South at an angle that keeps the sun at about the 10 am position throughout its' entire journey south. It returns North on the dark side of the earth. The orbit constantly progresses Westward keeping the sun at the 10 am position. Each full orbit around the earth takes just 90 minutes, so that satellite is really moving. The strips are visible on all continents once you've zoomed out to 400 miles or so (bottom right in GoogleEarth). The oceans are just colorized elevation models representing the ocean floor. To answer your question specifically, those areas you pointed to are mosaiced imagery. The first one is probably nothing more than the tops of clouds and then a computer tried to color balance it and really ruined the edges - making them darker. The second is definitely looking all the way to the ground. Collecting imagery from the poles is the most difficult because the satellite only has a couple of months a year where the sun has any useful angle for imagery. I wouldn't be surprised if 90+% of the imagery of Antarctica is just cloud cover.

Spoil sport! It sure was fun imagining all the mysterious possibilities!

[BenLurkin]

Interesting!

[Tulsa Ramjet]

your friend is one of them. we are not alone.......ha ha.

[SunkenCiv]

uh, okay.

[Fred Nerks]

Impossible. Helen Thomas has aged!

[endthematrix]

Already debated.

NAZI UFOs TRUTH or MYTH?

Just read through ALL 2900 posts, to find out, lol!

[Fred Nerks]

I knew what it was immediately, you can’t fool me, I’m the one who found that launchpad on Mars, remember?

[Las Vegas Dave]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1961373%2C18

Posting 18 has a screen shot of the image.

I did find on my Google Earth program the area in question, to me it appears to be air brushed stitching and nothing more. (The south pole has very few detailed areas on Google.Earth..)

Google.Earth has a mileage ruler, I measured approximately 5 miles wide, and 13 miles long. (BTW: the mileage ruler is a quick and easy way to measure driving distances, as an estimate only.)

[DollyCali]

Interesting thread.. and

I LOVE GOOGLE EARTH

Problem is when I go there I get lost for hours in exploration. Will check this all out tonight. Thanks for heads up Tulsa Ramjet!

[Perdogg]

Try this instead

70° 09’ 21.75” S 87° 45’ 52.71” E

[mtbopfuyn]

Sure, but it’s interesting that only that one square is airbrushed/weirded out clouds/alien secret landing site is shown like that. And the second site with the grill marks doesn’t look nature-made.