Is this Atlantis?

reply to post by Boogley


sorry but its nothing more than a trench and up wellings[ hills] sonar is hard to decipher . dont look at images for more than 10 mins without a break as you will convince yourself of things that arent there

reply to post by Zepherian


ahhh so nice to see a light in this darkness. I totaly agree with you

reply to post by frailty

This is another Google Earth image in the north Pacific,similar angular structure along with groups of almost identical cone structures,

reply to post by smurfy


Yah its called a mid oceanic ridge.

Its where new oceanic crust upwells and spreads out.

This could be alot of things. Maybe it could have even been an ancient town, but Atlantis? There is no way to prove such a thing. If they found a giant underwater pyramid as old as 200,000 years, that would turn me into a believer.

And to all of you "pole shifters" out there, i suggest you read some real scientific works on the earths geology and its basic mechanics.
The earths magnetic poles, are not the same thing as the axis of rotation.

A flip in polarity of the earths magnetic field doesnt mean that earths crust suddenly flips around.
Just the magnetic field switches polarity, and there are regions today where the magnetic field has changed polarity already, and has done so with in the last few decades.
But the mechanism by which the magnetic field flips polarity, could cause things such as earthquakes and volcanoes.
But the crust has never slipped in such a fashion as some seem to think

reply to post by punkinworks09
I agree with you as regards the "uphills",but it is the arrow straight lines, partly forming a rectangle(one is very wide) and smaller arrow straight diagonals that are intriguing within the proximity of the uphills.You might think the straight lines, or trenches or whatever they are would have been distorted by the new uphills,unless the lines are newer than the uphills.On the other hand the straight lines may just be a photographic anomoly as Google says.

I downloaded a copy of the 'grid' off Yahoo!'s usual news listing on Fri, 2/20.

Google and/or others were complaining that the image was a product or artifact of sonar/computer processing.

For my two cents' worth:
There are quite a few hills to the left of the image, implying generally higher ground in that direction. There was also a trench extending to the lower left of the image and also what appears(?) to be a river to the upper right of the grid network.

Also, the apparent trenches don't cross many or all the hills, as I saw them. They aren't part of computer processing unless they do cover the hills. If they really are trenches, the builders would probably avoid the hills and incorporate them into the overall city planning, yes? I did read years ago that the Aztecs south of what would become Mexico City regularly used canals to grow food near and on and also to facilitate transportation. The canals still exist today.
Also, the Aztecs didn't actually build the pyramids in Mexico City, their legends indicate *the Gods* built them. I understand their point because I'm Native American and I'm familiar with the overall Native North American tribal cultures.


Questions crossing my mind:

Was the ocean that much shallower when the structure was built? If not, did plate tectonics play a role in settling the structure to its present depth?

Is the actually ground lower in that direction for a river to flow in that direction? Toward a abysmal lake or large depression, which would make sense if the builders wanted a marine diet to eat or a lake for intercity trade?

Are there other such structures in the area? Around an abysmal depression as mentioned above? If so, would that imply a civilizatioon?

Wasn't Atlantis a whole continent, rather than one large city as this structure appears to be?

If the oceanic trenches are really there, was their functional purpose similar to that of the later Aztecs near Mexico City? If *Atlantis sank*, as the legends says, did survivors make their way to future Mexico the then start over again at the future Mexico City?

www.google.com...

No, the lost city of Atlantis has not been found.

Google Earth images showing what appeared to be a grid of streets on the ocean floor off the coast of Africa were actually tracks left by boat sonar.

Sorry if this is already posted. Also, people are forgetting the classical layout of Atlantic is circular.

the op story was from 'the sun' not sure if you know but this paper is pure trash, if its in the sun its BS. anyway,thought it was accepted that atlantis is antartica. you guys heard of the piri reis maps? theres your atlantis.

boats =D

I never would have thought Atlantis was this large - about 100 by 120 miles!

Hi all, Long time reader of the forum, first time poster...

Just had a relevant question to add to the discussion:

If this is INDEED a artifact, or a NORMAL process of data collection, with side scanning/deep ocean sonar/radar.

And it this "Image Artifact" is to be expected from the processes that we use to collect data on deep ocean topography...

Then why is it not more prevalent in other areas of the ocean? (On Google earth), especially, in this sort of interesting Geometric pattern/layout?

Seems to me that this is the only one of any geometric regularity... is this the ONLY area of the ocean that we have scanned the bottom of?

-Edrick (My $0.02)

reply to post by Edrick


no no
That's the exact question they don't want you to ask.

While I would certainly like for this to be Atlantis, I don't think that it is anything at all.

The water depth is 3 1/2 miles. Cameras from space cannot penetrate to that depth. Virtually no light penetrates deeper than 2000 feet anywhere in any ocean. Seawater is just not that transparent, since it is loaded with billions of tiny plankton microbes per square foot.

In fact, in many places around the world the light doesn't even penetrate 1000 feet. If you get close to a coastal area, then the visibility drops off very fast due to silt in the water.

The OP says that the image is a composite from deep ocean surveys and space imaging. It is no coincidence that the lines are rectangular, they are probably artifacts caused by a computer program that stitched the data together. Space imaging tends to be rectangular in shape as do sonar scans.

I am predicting that Google Earth will quietly announce this error in their data in a few weeks time. After they have had millions of hits on it.

reply to post by Edrick


Less than 5 percent of the ocean bottom has been explored. In fact the last time that I checked the actual amount was something like 2 percent of the ocean bottom has been mapped. So, it is quite possible that the data that you see is an area that was surveyed for oil exploration, subsea survey, or for some subsea geology.

It is rumored that the US Navy has surveyed the entire Atlantic Ocean bottom, but those surveys are "Above Top Secret" so to speak. Since they are used to chart nuclear submarine routes and hiding places.

The Navy also had a long wave radar imaging satellite in orbit back in the 80's and 90's. Aviation Week and Space Technology, claimed that, that satellite could penetrate the ground to a depth of more than 30 feet and the oceans to any depth. It could essentially make the oceans completely transparent. That data is also, "Above Top Secret".

Robert Ballard has gotten much press over the past 25 years in his finding and identifying historical wrecks. Since he and the Wood's Hole Institute receive a lot of funding from the Navy, it is quite possible that he has had access to some of the data. It would be a very convenient way to make some of the more interesting stuff public without having to disclose the secret info.

So, Google is left with only bits and pieces of information and that could result in the artifacts.

One last bit of humor on this. Has anyone considered that those grid lines that we see on globes could be real?

Originally posted by Edrick
Hi all, Long time reader of the forum, first time poster...

Just had a relevant question to add to the discussion:

If this is INDEED a artifact, or a NORMAL process of data collection, with side scanning/deep ocean sonar/radar.

And it this "Image Artifact" is to be expected from the processes that we use to collect data on deep ocean topography...

Then why is it not more prevalent in other areas of the ocean? (On Google earth), especially, in this sort of interesting Geometric pattern/layout?

Seems to me that this is the only one of any geometric regularity... is this the ONLY area of the ocean that we have scanned the bottom of?

-Edrick (My $0.02)

This is my point exactly, they haven't shown any other formations like this...

All of the other examples of sonar tracks look nothing like this....

Good Promotion trick form Google across thousands of blog/Forum rooms

"Oh #, Google found Atlantis"

Out of curiosity do you all swallow what ever is being shoveled in your mouths. ?

there's quite a lot of evidence that atlantis was on the greek island of santorini. look it up. it's a round island and the center where the main city was has exploded and is currently flooded. they uncovered cities from 1700 BC which had comfy houses with water & sewage piping and on crete (an expansion of the santorini civ) they found "palaces" that are as earthquake proof as our most modern structures due to combining wood & stone to increase strength and flexibility. also the social structure appears to have been quite advanced with men and women being equal.

what you see in these google earth pictures are just the same issues as the mpeg artifacts. compression, maybe some real sonar data and of course human brains trying to make sense of what they are seeing...