It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Baltic Sea Anomaly questions

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The Baltic Sea Anomaly is still a bit of a disputed mystery as some places claim it's a natural formation while others claim it's part of a UFO that crashed.

Of particular interest to me, at this moment, is the "impact trench" that appears to precede the anomaly.

What I'm trying to determine, unsuccessfully, is the direction of the trench from end to end, so hopefully the more scientific minded members of ATS can provide some insight.





posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: wtfatta

just off the top of my head - the problems with the notion of :

" an impact trench "

are [ in no particular ourder ]

the feature lies at a depth of 80m - if you want to play the " sea levels were historically lower " game - then fine - but that raises other issues

how long is the alledged impact trench [ that determines approach angle ?

impact energy estimates ?

egjecta ?

impact damage to the alledged " craft " - its supposedly circular - no damage ???? thatss one hel of a durable craft


ETA :

profile an " impact trench " - has a signiture profile - does this alledged " trench " - fit a credible impact profile ?



edit on 1-8-2018 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: wtfatta

There is no evidence that the Baltic Anomaly is a "UFO".....the general consensus of opinion is that it is a natural formation, the most common images on the net are actually artist's impressions and not accurate representations of what is actually there.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: wtfatta

The Baltic Sea Anomaly is rock , the rocks and scarring (impact trench) are probably the result of the two long periods of glaciation the area experienced.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Out of ignorant curiosity, are there other places around the world, or at that latitude, that show the reality that something that is currently that deep in the ocean was not only moved by glaciation at one point, but that it produced such a scar in the earth as it happened?

I sincerely don't know the answer to that question.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Really, the only reason it gained any attention at all is because somebody noticed it resembles the Millennium Falcon from Star Wars.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Glacial erratics can be very large.

In my opinion from research I did at the time that is what the Baltic Anomaly is , but it could have another natural explanation.
edit on 1-8-2018 by gortex because: Better picture



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Yeah, I know about the size and existence of these things on land--my question is are there any known to exist at the depths and of similar size as "the anomaly?"

Regardless, the facts are that it's there, and there is seemingly a trail behind it, meaning that it got there somehow by being moved in a rather straight line for some distance by some force. Of course, we have much smaller "sailing stones" leaving trails on the desert surface in Nevada and California due to the perfect mix of melting ice and wind, so there are a ton of possibilities out there.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex
Blimey gortex that glacial rock is special! It's got a steps up it. What a natural phemon, phinom, Thing. By the way they've been down to the Baltic thing and it's natural.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: wtfatta

Short answer, no one know's, samples taken from the site of basalt are from a rock which was sitting on top of the object which is not quite the same thing, I don't know if they drilled core sample or anything else categorical.

themysterybeneath.wordpress.com...
So is the professor making this assumption actually working with actual categorical evidence or genuinely speaking for the entire object and not just a stone sample from on TOP of the object.
www.express.co.uk...

Of course either way when one professor says something with which the skeptic's are comfortable valid or not it will then be repeated and before you know it is claimed to be the undeniable fact, why because it fit's the view and BELIEF of those skeptic's far more well than something which could shake there personal view of reality, they then turn rational into irrational as they hide behind what they know and deny what they do not know.

But in there defense the people who found it do indeed seem to be milking it for everything they can get out of it money wise and if it is just a rock then there cash cow has gone to the abattoir.

www.livescience.com...

My personal belief, keep an open mind, if electrical interference is genuine as claimed then that is a very intriguing point to bare in mind but only IF it is real.

Otherwise it is intriguing, rock or not it may have been shaped by the hand of man BUT that would have to have been a very long time ago and given that most of northern europe was actually deep under glaciation how long is VERY long ago.
Could it be a natural formation, certainly but one that is extremely unusual and that in itself beg's the question how did it form like that.
www.express.co.uk...
What we can be certain of however is that Ocean X seem to be an unreliable source of information even in spite of the fact they are the one's whom discovered this object because they are only using it to make money so want you to be interested in it.
The Professor is a good source of information even in spite of the fact his data is limited because he has not lied but nevertheless his opinion about the entire object is just that an opinion but one grounded in solid scientific rational.

www.ufosightingsfootage.uk...

My opinion, IF it was a UFO or USO it would have been spirited away by someone already, the ocean X guy's would have mysteriously lost interest in it after either a pay off or being warned off, it is not just a stone though as the formation show's some form of intelligent manipulation even if it is a rock.
What is it, Dumped cargo of some kind?, cold war device possibly a secret project now completely forgotten left abandoned by one side or the other given the importance of monitoring soviet naval traffic in the Baltic during that period potentially even a secret american project of some kind?, ancient inter-glacial artifact of a lost culture though it seem's a bit deep for that given it's location that said?.

It is an interesting object but you won't get a definitive answer here on this site or anywhere for that matter.

Far more interesting is the city like formation off of Cuba, for me it is a city but the case is also definitely one of opinion not fact.
Conspiracy over a cover up, probably just conspiracy because the finders like ocean X were more interesting in making money out of the find.



Not so much against as casting some doubt on the matter of it being artifact in nature (personally I belive the site has a high degree of artificiality but once again that is my opinion and this goes against that).


edit on 1-8-2018 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I thought it was determined that the Baltic Sea Anomaly was a soft coral polyp.

I had a bunch of them in my old salt water aquarium. They can actually walk them selves to new areas.
Maybe that "impact trench" is really its previous travel route?



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The "impact trench" is in quotes because I have no direct evidence as yet that it is a deformation caused by an impact, but impact trench is how it's often referred to, so I went with the most commonly known attributable name to describe the feature I'm most interested in. To that end, this is part of what I'm trying to determine:


originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: wtfatta

how long is the alledged impact trench [ that determines approach angle ?

impact energy estimates ?


I have an hypothesis that the Baltic Sea anomaly is ejecta from a supervolcano, and if I can determine the approach angle, I have a starting point and a rough area that may have to account for the coriolis effect. From there I also need to determine the force necessary to project a 35 kiloton rock X kilometers away. I assume the force necessary would be monstrous and if it exceeds any known volcanic eruptive force, I must conclude it's not likely a result of a volcano; however, if it falls within an acceptable range and within X distance from a known supervolcano, the likelihood increases that it's simply ejecta of various forms of rock.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Argyll

I did say that others claim it to be a UFO. I make no such claim.

Impact trench is in quotes because I have no direct evidence that it is a deformation as a result of an impact.

My opinion is that it's most likely ejecta or a meteoroid.

My question is in regards to locating the direction of the trench from end to end so I can determine a possible angle of impact if one exists.

This response would not be needed if you had read my post more carefully instead of seeing only a supposed connection of the original post to UFOs where none was directly or indirectly implied aside from the statement that "...others claim it's part of a UFO...".



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

An intriguing idea! I will definitely look into that as a possibility. Thanks!



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Wow! A lot of detail in that! Thanks for your input and now I have some more reading to do!



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I agree that the anomaly is likely rock and I accept that glaciation is also a possibility. Once I've ruled out it being ejecta, I plan on moving to meteoroid, glaciation and now soft coral thanks to another person.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I think the OP's link hit the nail on the head...


A consensus of experts and scientists say that the image most likely shows a natural geological formation.


It ain't an anomaly.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

You're not wrong.

I assume that, whether it's ejecta, a meteoroid, etc, it's likely happened before.

In the unlikely scenario that it's a crashed interstellar vessel, it would likely not be the only interstellar vessel thus it would be safe to conclude that a crashed interstellar vessel is not anomalous either...within the context of that hypothetical scenario.

In either case, you're not wrong, but nothing of real significance has been added.



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Is that a pic of petrified wood?
Or was that just a chunk of rock that hitched a ride on a glacier?



posted on Aug, 1 2018 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

It's a big a chunk of rock that hitched a ride in a glacier.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join