Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Flying car captured on Google Earth

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.)
Posted by Mac at 12:16 AM

7 comments:

W.M. Bear said...

I saw this on Fortean Times too. Looks real. Shades of Back to the Future 2! It could be a hovercraft-type vehicle but, as the story notes, there don't seem to be any obvious ground-effect fans attached. (No large, characteristic intake ducts, etc.) Interestingly, the invention of anti-gravitic levitation and its use for personal transportation (including skateboards!) was a key prediction of BTTF 2. (Speaking of s.f. predictions that come true or don't.)

9:58 AM
Mark said...

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.

10:42 AM
JohnFen said...

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.

8:07 PM
JEFM said...

The car be flying homes!

LOL

Seriously, Johnfen ide is not far-fetched. Now Bear, how about the Cubs winning the W.S.

Now, THAT'S a key SF prediction that hasn't come true.

Jon

11:50 PM
W.M. Bear said...

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.

Automobile levitation debunked! Color me a naive sucker.

11:41 AM
JohnFen said...

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.!

12:54 PM
JohnFen said...

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?

1:01 PM