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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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:
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.
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...".
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.
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.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.