No, really.
According to our Oz photo interpretation bureau (Clinton Bird), the vehicle in question is at an altitude of three of four metres and doing about 80 knots.
(Via The Anomalist.)
According to our Oz photo interpretation bureau (Clinton Bird), the vehicle in question is at an altitude of three of four metres and doing about 80 knots.
(Via The Anomalist.)
"A stunning survey of the latest evidence for intelligent life on Mars. Mac Tonnies brings a thoughtful, balanced and highly accessible approach to one of the most fascinating enigmas of our time."
--Herbie Brennan, author of Martian Genesis and The Atlantis Enigma
"Tonnies drops all predetermined opinions about Mars, and asks us to do the same."
--Greg Bishop, author of Project Beta
"I highly recommend the book for anyone interested in the search for extra-terrestrial artifacts, and the political intrigues that invariably accompany it."
--David Jinks, author of The Monkey and the Tetrahredron
"Mac Tonnies goes where NASA fears to tread and he goes first class."
--Peter Gersten, former Director of Citizens Against UFO Secrecy
And don't miss...
(Includes my essay "The Ancients Are Watching.")
Join the Posthuman Blues Geographical Matrix!
4 comments:
I don't know how someone could plausibly infer the speed of the car based on the photo.
It looks more like something that Google would Photoshop into the picture to help protect their copyright, or something.
I'll bet it's real. When I was a kid, there used to be a car mounted up on a pole just like that, as a roadsign for an auto mechanic, I think. I'm guessing that's what this is, but the resolution/angle is wrong to see the pole.
Yes, I gave a perfectly plausible explanation. However, it seems to be completely wrong. Maybe you're not as naive as I am, w.m.!
On second thought, I think something fishy is going on here. It's hard to be sure given the angles involved, but check me on this: on the page I linked to showing ground-level photos, compare the street centerline strip to the google overhead photo.
They look like they almost, but not quite, match. In particular, the strip becomes solid much further past the entry to the parking lot on the ground level photo. If we allow perspective to explain why the top/far lot looks shorter in the ground-level photo, then the solid portion of the center line should appear to begin too close to the driveway, not too far. Right?
Post a Comment