Part 1 of 2 of my post.
I'm not trying to sound arrogant, but I do have some valuable experience:
1. Bachelors Degree in Geology, Penn State, 1977, GPA in geology courses was 3.90.
2. Two and a half years of graduate school. Published paper in Geological Society of America Bulletin (one of the top journals in the geosciences)
with no help from my advisor on research or writing the paper.
(look for my name in the list and click on 'abstract')
3. About 20,000 hours experience using high quality stereo digital imagery to make maps. (40hours*52weeks*10years = 20,800 hours minus 800 hours for
sick leave, annual leave & holidays = about 20,000 hours.)
The pattern is man-made:
No matter what this grid pattern turns out to be, the shape of it is definitely man-made. It’s not natural. I’m 100% positive. This is based on my
tens of thousands of hours experience looking at imagery, plus my background in geology. In the past few years, most of the time I see people
discussing a shape on Mars, the Moon, or Earth, the object is obviously natural. The first question to answer is "Is this pattern really on the sea
floor or was it introduced later (in the data collection or data manipulation phase)?
From my experience looking at imagery:
The pattern looks just like your typical BUA (built up area) in a dry climate. The kind you find in flat areas in the middle of nowhere in a dry
climate with little vegetation. You have a dirt road leading in and one leading out. The "street" pattern is in a rectangular grid although the
streets are little more than dirt. I have personally seen it thousands of times. There is one major problem with interpreting this as an "Atlantis
grid pattern." It is way too huge! The built-up-areas I am talking about are perhaps an eighth of a mile across. This Atlantis square grid is
supposedly the size of Wales. On the surface of things I am tempted to think this is a hoax by one of the data compilers. Then again, it might just be
a very phenomenal coincidence.
If we accept that (1) what we are seeing on the sea floor is really there, and (2) the 3D appearance of it is an accurate reflection of it, then I
have a few comments. The lines look to be incised into the sea floor so it seems that the lines are not roads. They have to be small "canyons." The
reason is that there is no justification for excavating earth to make a road in an area that is basically flat. Look at a road on a flat area, there
are no roadcuts because they aren't needed. So if the scale of 100 miles across is correct, AND these are remnants from an ancient civilization,
these lines would have to be interpreted as huge canals.
Discussing "Tracks of sonar scans"
1. First of all, tracks of sonar scans would only be seen in the original data or the resulting images created from it, not on the sea floor. Sound
waves (sonar) can't cause grooves or canyons on the sea floor.
2. The lines on the grid stop when they get near the topographic (hydrographic) highs. It seems to me that is they are related to data collection they
would continue right over the high areas. Roads/ditches would stop short of the high areas and that is what we see. (this was also noted on 20-2-2009
@ 06:51 PM by big_m)
3. Lots of people posted photos showing long parallel lines. I can easily believe that these are artifact of the data collection process using sonar.
But a square gridlike pattern doesn't mesh with that theory at all. Also, look at the lower right of the grid. There is actually a smooth curve along
a right-angle junction. I don’t think that is how the ships work. They trawl in straight, parallel lines.
4. How do you get small, north-south" trending lines perpendicular to the overall trend that end abruptly when they meet the long lines? Ships can't
do that either.