What is Digg?210 Comments
- jizzimmy, on 10/12/2007, -17/+357And let's end the chain of bad jokes right here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+329It's a solar panel directly reflecting light back into the lens.
- DiggChainey, on 10/12/2007, -20/+272Think thats cool? How about this?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=13&ll=28.369501,-16.503525&spn=0.078694,0.176468&t=k&om=1 - SoonerRoadie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+126Hellion, the reason the image resembles a shadow is because the source for that segment of the map is different from the surrounding areas. The shadows of buildings are in different directions because the different sets of images were taken at different times of the day and year. The color of the images is also affected by, inter alia, the time of day and year the images were taken.
- matman730, on 10/12/2007, -5/+95Looks like something very shiny is reflecting sunlight directly into the satellite camera's lens.
- sTiVo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+89Yes they do scan some of their images. Try explaining this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?p=1082&c=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=18&ll=48.857635,10.20529&spn=0.002527,0.005032&t=k - jpatch, on 10/12/2007, -13/+100It's Amsterdam, right?
You're probably just stoned, that's all... - SnakeO, on 10/12/2007, -24/+101P3ST4 / Hellion,
Open your eyes! Do you see the shadow that this 'airplane' is casting is covering an ENTIRE CITY. Zoom in, you can see the buildings and streets. Think about it, an entire ***** city would not be covered by one object's shadow whose size is an average home. Think about the average cloud's size (multiple city blocks), and yet that one cloud may cover just a small park at best. The size of this object was monumental... - aurrea, on 10/12/2007, -10/+83It's just a whorehouse. They all shine pretty like that.
- lament, on 10/12/2007, -1/+58Indian and the iPod:
http://tinyurl.com/ye288v - totjoj, on 10/12/2007, -2/+58It's almost as strange as the british architecture found here:
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=k&om=1&ll=52.470766,-1.908813&spn=0.001382,0.003264
I wonder if that is where M.C. Escher grew up... - bigwyrm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53@Psych77: pot, kettle, black
Let's play your silly little game.
The earth orbits approximately 150,000,000,000 meters from the sun. The service ceiling of the B-2A Spirit is 15,000 meters (from the surface of the earth).
Put a lamp at one end of a (110 meter long) football field and hang a sheet at the other end. Stand against the sheet and have somebody measure your shadow. Move 11 micrometers away from the sheet and have somebody measure your shadow again. Compare measurements. - coreyb, on 10/12/2007, -9/+52It is called IMAGE STITCHING...
Edit: SoonerRoadie beat me to it. - fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -6/+43P3ST4 / Hellion / SnakeO
You're looking at a composite image of many different individual square photos taken at different times with possibly different satellites. Look at the surrounding region, there are many such regions of different colour. The shape is a coincidence.
Edit: yeah yeah, I was beaten to it too. - Wamzlee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+37When I was flying into Amsterdam airport, I seen that alot of roofs were very reflective that the morning sun practically blinded me.
My hypothesis that the this star happens to be one of those roofs. - Jonas094, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35chill out asteron... do you really think it's that unlikely that more than one person would find this on their own?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32who said it was flying?
- dark_helmet, on 10/12/2007, -12/+40Looks like a hole in the map they were scanning that goes through to something reflective.
With a second look, i have no idea what it is. - plsailboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29that's pretty awesome. great find.
not as cool as the indian sporting the ipod.... but still cool - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31Solar panels should not be reflective. Their aim is to collect light, not reflect it.
- flameboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31I don't think thats it.
Besides, its absurd to think these maps were scanned in. Do you know how many printed photos there would be? for all the different resolutions? every square inch of the world? - Moopy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26*cough*
Native American. - ProfBagelwood, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Winner. Could almost be one of those, "Can you think outside the box enough to solve this?" sort of puzzles, but yeah, I think you've nailed it. It's much more likely than having something that shiny pointed that perfectly at the satellite.
- P3ST4, on 10/12/2007, -50/+71definitely a stealth b2 bomber on the previous link
- yum9me, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20If you zoom out a bit you can see coloured shapes to the right.
- HAKdragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Reminds me of the original Sim City.
- macneib, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The ipod dude is in Canada so it's First Nations.
*cough* *cough* - Rutje, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20That's not Amsterdam, it's Purmerend... but hey, it's Holland, so it's near Amsterdam
- cronot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@Casaman:
Excuse me? A bug in the lens at near-stratosphere altitude? Besides, if that were even possible, the bug wouldn't be visible because it would be completely out of focus.
It sounds weird to me too that they work with printed photos, but the evidences look consistent to it. - hufman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Google Earth says it's Purmerend
- Zreitan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16It's a rip in very fabric of reality!
- AlphaToxic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18@erikbra81
how about the upper right corner of the SAME IMAGE?
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=13&ll=28.40182,-16.503525&spn=0.107813,0.159645&t=k
this is all over google maps, it's in no way rare - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16They do hand scan the images. There was bug mentioned here a few eeks back that would have had to be 40' long. Google said it was a bug that got caught between the plates during scanning
http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060928-090412 - jabberwock1977, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Anyway.. here's a real aeroplane (unlike the section-joining "B2 Shadow'!)
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&q=&near=52+20+10.87N+0+11+43.34W&ie=UTF8&z=19&ll=52.336385,-0.195372&spn=0.000778,0.002688&t=k&om=1&iwloc=addr - arkmtech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Good call! :-)
Maybe someone with solar-panels on their rooftop, and the satellite & sun just happened to be at the perfect angle? - Klostrophobic, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18I think a more likely explanation is that its a death ray that some dude from Amsterdam is shooting directly into a satellite lens.
The more pressing question is why are you looking in Amsterdam? You do realize that it's impossible to see girls from the Red Light District from this lens, right? - masterofsw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Most detailed images on Google are not taken be satellites. The map companies hire aircraft to take the hi-res images over popular places.
- pgoowy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Psych77
The sun is a bit further away from the plane than you hand is to the flash light. Seriously, if you think about the distances involved, unless you're in the star-ship enterprise, the only size effect is due to diffusion ... - Conquerist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11What Indian sporting what Ipod? link please?
EDIT: Wow, that response was fast! - spinningobo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10No, this:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=l&hl=en&ie=UTF8&z=18&ll=52.510286,4.958283&spn=0.002282,0.005032&t=k&om=1 - Jimtac, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13It's freaking "Lasers"...
- salsaman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11ding ding!
These look like artifacts of direct, high intensity reflections hitting the satellite's optics just right. Flares like this are often seen in photographhy when an intense light source is in frame.
Flickr finds:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattie_shoes/185319061/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/petecarr/304099016/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loplop/298237945/ - UrlorJkron, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Not all photos come in a digital format you know.
- diggsilva, on 07/10/2008, -3/+10Definitely not? Not probably not? Or most likely not? Do you have proof as to why it's definitely not?
- Psych77, on 10/12/2007, -10/+17@manicleek: If you're going to be a smartarse, first be sure you're being smart.
To replicate the effect of a larger shadow being cast the close the object is to the lightsource (e.g the sun) is easy. Take a torch (ok, flashlight). Turn it on. Put your finger in front of it and move your finger away and towards the light. See how the size of the shadow cast changes? - CasaMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@arkmtech
These high resolution pictures aren't taken by satellite but by little airplanes from a few hundred meters high. - resplence, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Whoa, liquid metal brain.
- piesforyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@Bug on the lens; best comment EVER. Thankyou for making my day.
- nightowl313, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Wow... I just sat down to think about how truly tedious, time-consuming, annoying and dull that must be to scan in that volume of images. Just thinking about the effort required caused my brain to melt and reform.
- garbrand, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ha, I've just bought a house there. I'll walk on over tomorrow and see if there is anything reflective...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 208 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is