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.

 

Very unusual holes/openings/entrances found in Antartica

page: 14
199
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ByteChanger

I wonder if anyone has google earth Pro and can get a better picture... I think the pro version gets better resolution... not positive though since I don't have it...

Unfortunately, no .... image resolution is the same for all versions, it's just the features and license that differs between the versions.




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi, I have been reading these comments, and I've noticed that nobody has mentioned something I saw. The "covering" in the second picture looks very much like a tick! That surface, with the regular puckers near the edges, looks very organic, and certainly not geological in form. Not just that, but there appears to be debris being shed from beneath it, which can be seen just above the thing in a trail going off to the left. That is loose material, and looks rather fresh! You are making the presumption that, simply because of its size, it must be either geological or military in nature. That may be a mistaken view.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grrranny
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Hi, I have been reading these comments, and I've noticed that nobody has mentioned something I saw. The "covering" in the second picture looks very much like a tick! That surface, with the regular puckers near the edges, looks very organic, and certainly not geological in form. Not just that, but there appears to be debris being shed from beneath it, which can be seen just above the thing in a trail going off to the left. That is loose material, and looks rather fresh! You are making the presumption that, simply because of its size, it must be either geological or military in nature. That may be a mistaken view.



I understand where you're coming from and yes, it does give an "organic" impression.

But I do have to thankyou as you pointed out a feature I had previously missed ... the greyish tubular structure (A) to the left of the main dome. It's doesn't appear to be a part of the surrounding rock strata as it's colouration is closer to that of the domes.

A zoom in seems to indicate a possible dark opening/entrance (B) at one end of the tubular structure.
Also, I could be mistaken but at the opposite end of the tubular structure seems to be a tower like structure (C).




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus

As for why i was there ... just one of my hobbies using GE ... amazing the things one finds when one looks carefully enough


That's called "I spy with my little eye" and it's a game anyone can play.
Seriously, if you look hard enough you can find something in anything.

I am POSITIVE I can pull up Google maps, start somewhere on the planet and within 60 minutes have half a dozen images of things I could not explain...and there would be a dozen people on ATS swearing everything I found was artificial, alien or supernatural.

Actually that might be kind of fun, create a new user name (anti-gormly) and post all kinds of anomolous images, create a following.. .


(No, I wouldn't do that.. not very ethical of me..)

What I am saying is 99.99% of everything we humans look at but don't understand is natural.
I don't know one way or another if these are that .01%, but I doubt it. They are certainly not unique, I have seen similar images of holes, caves, vents before.

You have to consider the location, circumstances, cost, engineering and of course, potential benefit of the man made creation of holes like this.. It seems to me that consideration of extraneous factors just isn't in the mindset of the average ATS'er... :


You can't just say, "we'll they look man made..."

What is more likely? A government going through the expense (in all it's meanings) to create this way out there.. or it just be one more of a million other oddities of nature.

Don't get me wrong, most of the time I love these posts (and I am certainly not discounting the OP, or the images) I don't jump in because I don't have any useful information to add, scientifically speaking, but occasionally I just need to join in just to even the playing field for a second because what gets me every time is people on ATS claiming things can't possibly be natural (not referring to you OP).

Most of the people here are just average Joe's, like me.. if a geologist came here and said, "nope not natural" I'd have a much easier time speculating instead of when Joe Six-Pack says it.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 


Gormly ... I'm in absolute agreement with your comments and as you say, 99.99% of the time there's in all probability a completely rational, scientific and most times, common sense reason for what we're seeing.

In fact, that was THE reason that I started this thread in the 1st place ... to highlight some very unusual features found in a very incredible, out of the way and for most of us, a totally inaccessible place on the planet.
So these images were put up for those ATS'ers with an interest in that sort of thing to ponder over and try to come up with a logical and reasonable explanation for the items existance.

But I'll tell you what DOES peeve me off no end is those people who take one look, do a very quick Google search for something that MAY look like the item ... and then pronounce in all their omniscience that it's "only a hole in the ground", "a crack in the ice", or whatever !



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Come on, people. It's obvious that these are where they found the Antartica Stargate.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElmiraViking
Come on, people. It's obvious that these are where they found the Antartica Stargate.


Sorry man, I will have to disagree with that.
I am there now and it certainly "isn't" removed.




posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gormly
 


Well written gormly, I could not have said it better. tauristercus
, don't get me wrong, I love to join the bandwagon if mysterious discoveries-- something that Antarctica is full of, but not every single artifact on Google Earth is a time machine, UFO, stargate, weapons facility, secret hidden base, etc.

It is probably the hardest place, if not absolutely the hardest place to image and map in the world. All those images we have are mainly satellite imagery, and while we do have topography maps of the region they are not accurate and certainly not up to date.

There is what, about 2-3 months that the continent is even accessable, and it is still an extremely dangerous travel pursuit.

The first two images on the original post IMO, are much more curious than everything following throughout this fifteen page long post. It has caused the whole thread to lose its focus, turning the inspection of some mysterious looking visual phenomenon into a witch hunt for every single out of place line, discoloration, and out of place pixil into possibly being secret towers and cannon turrets.

The more "strange things" that get pushed into attention tend to reduce the credibility of the entire thread. Hell one of these locations COULD be something real, and it would be disregarded considering that ten others listed are bunk and normal, natural occurences.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by gormly
 

But I'll tell you what DOES peeve me off no end is those people who take one look, do a very quick Google search for something that MAY look like the item ... and then pronounce in all their omniscience that it's "only a hole in the ground", "a crack in the ice", or whatever !


Don't be so quick to attack criticism. The role of devil's advocate is an important one to utilicize strengthening your own research and/or findings. If you can't support your theory to a critical eye, it isn't a very good theory.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I won't get excited until I see something like the Statue of Liberty's arm sticking out.

The dirt "walk-way" looks like it was formed by ice melt. I'd say it's a geothermal thingamajiggy. Especially being in a straight line as in a rift type line of thermal vents. What's the geology like there? The history of volcanism locally.

If they are man made what do you suggest they are? Ice can melt and refreeze in weird shapes.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by bottleslingguy]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Oh c'mon!!! That's where the giant penguins live.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by grs9769
Oh c'mon!!! That's where the giant penguins live.


It's Linus Torvalds secret lair.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
It is said the Nazis had a base down there for their flying craft. Operation high jump if I called it correctly went down there right after the war to get them. Then later blew off about 3 nukes as a "study". Other wise it is interesting thanks for bringing it up.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
The first thing I thought was that this was sinister and this was NOT "ours" (thereby having been created by a race from the cosmos). When I saw the first hole, that was the impression I got. And then seeing the METAL over the second hole - that just intensified my theory!

Who else sees the great synchronicity between the finding of these two openings and the upcoming opening of a movie that takes place in Antarctica (ironically coming out September eleventh; will that ALWAYS have a "disaster" element attached to it?!)? I don't think I've ever seen/known/heard of a movie that took place in Antarctica, and don't the powers that were tend to put out movies related to what's going on in the world?


en.wikipedia.org...(2009_film)



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Poor photoshop/copy/paste/ in first few images. You can clearly see the cut job around the "cave entrance". Where did the shell-like cover come from in the overhead shot? I'm not trying to flame but this is rediculously FAKE.

The "ship" photograph may or may not be real.

Photo 1

Photo 2



[edit on 1-9-2009 by Armaros]

[edit on 1-9-2009 by Armaros]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Armaros
 




Poor photoshop/copy/paste/ in first few images. You can clearly see the cut job around the "cave entrance". Where did the shell-like cover come from in the overhead shot? I'm not trying to flame but this is rediculously FAKE.


I'm not sure I'm following you .... are you implying that I photoshopped the images before I displayed them ? .... or are you implying that Google Earth (or the image sources) have photoshopped them ?

I assume that you HAVE looked at those locations on GE ?



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SlasherOfVeils
 




The first two images on the original post IMO, are much more curious than everything following throughout this fifteen page long post. It has caused the whole thread to lose its focus, turning the inspection of some mysterious looking visual phenomenon into a witch hunt for every single out of place line, discoloration, and out of place pixil into possibly being secret towers and cannon turrets.


I tend to agree with you that a lot can be read into what may look like something meaningful or real but is in reality just a fortuitous juxtaposition of pixels and shadows and that we need to be wary of such misinterpretations.

I've tried to avoid making such an error in the images I've displayed and as best as I can determine, the 2 originally displayed holes/openings/entrances, the strange material UNDER the rocks image and the line/wall image are all (in my opinion only) extremely unusual and definitely out of place and needing explanation. On the other hand, I've seen many examples of other "unusual" things but have not reported them as they could easily be pixellation and/or shadow effects and nothing to be gained by cluttering up this thread further.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


anyone post a google kml file in this 12 page long thread that i can't read in one sitting?

please?

ALSO:

this same posting shows up in godlikeproductions.com with this hilarious reply:

I find it amusing you sent us a link to volcanoes, none of which are on the same log/lat lines...the closest one is this

66°48′S 089°11′E / 66.8°S 89.183°E / -66.8; 89.183[1]

and the OP's coordinates are:
66 33' 11.58"S
99 50' 17.86"E

and

66 36' 12.58"S
99 43' 12.72"E

So, maybe you should consider another theory?

[edit on 9/1/2009 by drphilxr]



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Fake or not.....This is no more than a vent or cave that has been filled with ice and snow in the past...and as happened many times in the past the climate gets a little warmer and exposes the hole...

A base...Jeez it is filled with snow...



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by drphilxr
 



Talk about being ripped off !!! ..... the EXACT title that I used to create this thread has been plagiarized by someone and used to create a similar thread in GodlikeProductions


Instead of a kmz file, just skip through each page looking for the images ... each one has the GE coordinates attached ... shouldn't take more than a few mins to find them all.

[edit on 1-9-2009 by tauristercus]



new topics

top topics



 
199
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join