Thanks to everyone who commented on the original UFO find, although we’re still not sure what they are, there’s been some interesting developments.

Ian Pottinger and jher were the first to find that there are in fact eight of these “UFO”s over Florida, at the following points

One - Two - Three - Four - Five - Six - Seven - Eight

and Tensus used keyhole to map the points showing that they make a very neat grid.

Yoshino and jher later noticed that the UFOs are not limited to Florida but can also be found over L.A.

One - Two - Three - Foru - Five - Six - Seven - Eight - Nine - Ten - Eleven - Twelve - Thirteen

Things the UFOs are definitely not…

Space debris or another satellite?

Derek & Tensus discovered that the close-up images of Florida are taken by AerialsExpress.com at an altitude of 17,500 feet so are aerial photos and not satellite images.

Marks added to obscure famous peoples homes?

While there’s no doubt the whitehouse photos were processed for security it is very unlikely these UFOs are intentional ‘cover-ups’ due to the neat grid layout.

Water towers?

The UFOs are just too big to be water towers (and there’s no shadow).

Anomaly produced by the stitching software?

Shi Ju says

Definitely they’re NOT marks for picture stitching. In most stitching software (like for making panoramas) the algorithm comes down to finding sharp and contrasting details and aligning those spots with each other.

Things the UFOs still could be…

An alien spacecraft?

It’s still possible!

A weather balloon?

Tm says

The “Grid” is centered around an airfield, common launch points for weather balloons.

Although Klem says

All currently used radiosonde devices (weather balloons) are latex, yellowish beige to transluscent

and Jello adds

The object in question here does not cast a ground effect, therefore does not exist in the air.

A ‘lenticular’ cloud?

Patrick was the first to float this idea and the images he posted do look similar to the UFOs, although it is unlikely clouds would form in neat grids.

Condensation on the lens?

Possibly the current forerunner for most likely explanation, Stuart said…

Condensation inside some sort of housing would be my guess. If the drop were directly on the lens it would be effectively invisible. Put it a few inches/feet away and have the camera shooting with a very deep depth of field (as you would with a small aperture) and it would look just like that anomaly.

Something else?

Possibly one of a Peppermint, baseball, Vogon ship, crop circle, planet, thumbtack, ballbearings, smoke, pond, swamp gas, golf ball, satellite, flying ninja, space junk or contact lens as others have suggested!