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.

 

Is this the Antarctican Stargate device ?

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by tangotemper
 




What type of GE are you using? And how the devil did you find this? Will your bosses be peeved that you are using their expensive software then trying to pass it off as standard Google Earth?


I had a good chuckle at your Hobbit & Ring reference ... never could trust those darn Hobbits to do anything properly !


As for GE, I'm using the bog standard freeby version.

I've always had an eye for picking out details normally obscurred by large amounts of background "noise" ... just a talent of mine, I suppose.
And the reason I found it ? easy answer for that ...

Using GE and looking at Antarctica, you'll notice that most of the continent is imaged in quite low resolution and you can't really see much of interest below a few kilometres. But you'll notice that there are a number of rectangular overlays that are of much finer resolution, usually allowing you to go down to approx 400 metres.
Now I figured that there had to be a reason why someone requested those particular small areas reimaged in greater detail and thats where I concentrate on searching assuming that there MUSt be something of interest in those reimaged areas ... and look what turns up ... a ring of shiny metallic looking material ... obviously artificial and obviously real.

In fact, if you haven't done so already ... go check my previous thread "Very unusual holes/openings/entrances found in Antarctica"
www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread495433/pg1
where I show many more unusual and thought provoking items that I've found in many of these reimaged locations.

Just goes to show that "others" are expressing keen interest in certain areas to justify reimaging at higher resolutions !




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:49 AM
link   
This is an awesome find, Seeing I live in South Western Australia ( the closest civilized region to the location ) I suggest a quick whip around of the hat on ATS and bingo I have chartered a boat to go check it out...along with any other West Aussies prepared to go take a peak.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by afoolbyanyothername
 


Ah so you have been there?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mazzroth
This is an awesome find, Seeing I live in South Western Australia ( the closest civilized region to the location ) I suggest a quick whip around of the hat on ATS and bingo I have chartered a boat to go check it out...along with any other West Aussies prepared to go take a peak.


And I'm in S.A. !

Yes, I'd definitely jump at the chance to hop on any expedition chartered specifically to investigate those images/locations that I've posted in my previous thread.
But this ring artifact would definitely be at the top of my must-see list !
It's there ... it's obviously real ... and I WANT to know what it's purpose is.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
OK so even though I didn't need to look at Google Earth to realise this is a case of pareidolia, I decided to have a looksie anyways to see if I could shed some light on this......

When looking at the area from a slightly higher altitude one cannot help but see the Wikipedia icon not far to the north-east as shown here....

Image showing Wikipedia icon near anomaly



When the Wikipedia icon is clicked it brings up an information window that decribes something very interesting.....

Image showing Wikipedia popup about volcano


Now, given the close proximity to these anomalies (shown in the picture below), and taking Occams Razor into account (all things being equal the simplest explanation is most often the correct one), it is well within the realms of possibility that the supposed "Stargate" structure is, in fact, a lava tube and that the "camoflaged structure" is merely a snow covered volcanic ridge or other lava formation.

Image showing distance of anomalies from extinct volcanic caldera


[edit on 4/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Here is a website I found showing close-up pictures of the Gaussberg volcano and it's surrounding area. You can clearly see many lava formations in these pictures which adds creedence to my theory that these anomalies are nothing more than lava tubes and lava formations......

From: antarctica.kulgun.net...












EDIT TO ADD: Please do not misconstrue my intentions here, I am a believer in alien life and HUGE sci-fi fan/nerd and Stargate happens to be one of my favorite tv shows. I also, however, make it a point to try to weed out as many hoaxes and misinterpretations as possible so as to help focus efforts onto serious and promising investigations.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 




Now, given the close proximity to these anomalies (shown in the picture below), and taking Occams Razor into account (all things being equal the simplest explanation is most often the correct one), it is well within the realms of possibility that the supposed "Stargate" structure is, in fact, a lava tube and that the "camoflaged structure" is merely a snow covered volcanic ridge or other lava formation.


That's it ? ... your considered explanation ? A lava tube ? Does that ring look like its made of dark coloured laval rock material to you ?

Surely you have got to be kidding ? If not, then that's certainly got to be the first ever perfectly formed lava tube gleaming in what looks like shiny aluminium, steel or some other metallic material.

And how about explaining the obvious physical structures of the ring, namely its perfectly circular shape and it's highly polished and most probably, metallic circumference ?

In fact, if you're so certain that the ring is just a natural formation e.g. lava tube .... then how about confirming it by producing an image of another lava tube that appears to be made of a highly reflective, very smooth and polished material.

But at least you did happen in passing to make one extremely useful contribution ... namely, that a GERMAN antarctic expedition came at least within 300m of the present location of the ring ... makes you wonder what was of such interest to them at that location all the way back in 1902 that they would make a journey of approx 120kms across harsh terrain from the nearest coastline ! Must have been a very important reason !

Can anyone say BASE !!!!

[edit on 4-9-2009 by tauristercus]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Kryties
 

That's it ? ... your considered explanation ? A lava tube ? Does that ring look like its made of dark coloured laval rock material to you ?


You are basing your entire argument off the fact that it "looks like a ring" from certain angles.....

Lets change the angle of view to looking at it from the East...



Even now, it's beginning to look more like a ravine or canyon (or lava tube) but lets take a closer look shall we?



Note the irregularity of the line that I drew, also note what appears to be a big hole or perhaps a cavern entrance. At no time does the anomaly look anything like a "ring" as the line involved is far too irregular and jagged to be able to form anything resembling a ring structure.

No offence mate but you are seeing things that aren't there. Now if you were to have said that the "stargate" looked like an underground cavern entrance I may have been a little more interested, but seriously mate I do not think there is anything to this.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
Yes if you look very closely you can clearly see jack oneil and t'ealc firing at what seems to be a troop of jaffa, whilst daniel jackson is trying to open the stargate. But where is samantha carter? Has she been captured? Or is this a samantha carter free episode?


Sorry, couldnt resist... I just dont see it... But am missing my hot daniel



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 





At no time does the anomaly look anything like a "ring" as the line involved is far too irregular and jagged to be able to form anything resembling a ring structure.



Kryties, mate .........

What the heck are you carrying on about? A ravine ? A hole ? A canyon?

Take a good, long look at the artifact ... here, I'll help you !
Can you SEE the clearly defined and CIRCULAR edge of the ring ? Just follow the yellow outlines if you're still experiencing "ring blindness" !




posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Selahobed
Yes if you look very closely you can clearly see jack oneil and t'ealc firing at what seems to be a troop of jaffa, whilst daniel jackson is trying to open the stargate. But where is samantha carter? Has she been captured? Or is this a samantha carter free episode?


Sorry, couldnt resist... I just dont see it... But am missing my hot daniel


By any chance did you NOT read my very 1st sentence in my opening post ?

Here it is again ... just in case you missed it ....


Now, that I've got your attention, I'll start of by stating that what I'm about to show you is highly unlikely to be a "Stargate" as popularized on tv.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Kryties
 

Kryties, mate .........

What the heck are you carrying on about? A ravine ? A hole ? A canyon?

Take a good, long look at the artifact ... here, I'll help you !
Can you SEE the clearly defined and CIRCULAR edge of the ring ? Just follow the yellow outlines if you're still experiencing "ring blindness" !



OK so I assumed that the dark patch was the area you were talking about. Turns out you are looking at something even more obscure and blurry. How, from your images, you determine that this is a circular metallic object is beyond me. Here, lets look at the image again from the East.....



Now here it is again with your anomaly outlined....



You will note the section of the anomaly that shows the dark patch intruding into your so-called "ring".

Now, to inject a little sanity back into this subject, lets take a look at 2 images of Gaussberg (400 metres NE of the anomoly). The images were taken from the East which actually means that the anomaly should be visible in the second image - albeit very small....





Note the fractured ice and lava all around the area? Your "anomaly" looks much more like a simple ice formation as shown in numerous examples in the above two images.

This last image is of an "ice bridge" taken very nearby Gaussberg, although admittedly it's not of the exact anomaly but you have to agree that there is some startling similarities there.....



Honestly, in the last 3 images I have found numerous examples of formations that look similar to the one you are looking at. I know you really really WANT to see something there but I'm afraid that the evidence suggests it is nothing more than a natural formation.

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


No it is a mound of snow in the arctic that you have thoroughly OVER analyzed.



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Apparently you've made a very rudimentary error when using GE to view images from various angles.

With GE, the optimum viewing angle for ANY image is the angle at which the image was INITIALLY captured. Rotating the image and tilting the viewing angle to display it from another angle (simulated 3D viewing) introduces undesirable distortion and the amount of distortion increases the greater the angle at which attempting to view, from the initial capture angle. This distortion manifests itself as a flattening out effect of the image.



The image on the left is the original capture angle (approx from the South).
Notice how the ring is perfectly depicted in its original upright orientation.
Also notice how the background (to the left of the ring) is crisp, clear and well defined.

Now take a look at the image on the right that has been rotated 90 degrees to provide a SIMULATED viewing from the East (where you keep insisting on viewing it from).
Notice how the ring has been flattened out and especially notice how the same background behind the ring is now virtually non-existant with major loss in crispness, clarity and detail.

So by all means, go ahead and try to invalidate my interpretation ... but in doing so, please refrain from rotating the ring away from the optimum viewing angle and causing significant distortion, and then using that distorted image as "proof" that I'm talking through my arse (or ass, if you're American).

Learn how to use GE correctly ...



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


Actually it is YOU that have erred. All I simply did was adjust the image in a circular motion towards the right by 90 degrees. Never at any point in time did I adjust the altitude angle or tilt.

Once again for the dummies:
All I did was rotate the image 90 degrees to the right. I did NOT tilt the image.

Now that we have clarified that, can you provide any comments on the rest of my above post showing overwhelming evidence that it is nothing more than an ice and lava formation?



posted on Sep, 4 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 




All I simply did was adjust the image in a circular motion towards the right by 90 degrees. Never at any point in time did I adjust the altitude angle or tilt.

Once again for the dummies:
All I did was rotate the image 90 degrees to the right. I did NOT tilt the image.

Well, finally ... you've fronted up and admitted that you're deliberately misrepresenting the image by intentionally rotating it 90 degrees away from it's original optimal viewing direction. Makes me wonder why you continuously refuse to attempt to analyze the image from it's original southerly viewing direction with NO INTRODUCED DISTORTION





Once again for the dummies

Hmmmm ... quite an insultive remark to make to those ATS members who may NOT happen to agree with you !





Now that we have clarified that, can you provide any comments on the rest of my above post showing overwhelming evidence that it is nothing more than an ice and lava formation?

Actually, YOU'RE the one insisting categorically that my interpretation is erroneous and that it's nothing more than "an ice and lava formation", so the onus is on YOU as the debunker to show appropriate evidence and definitive examples of other similar "ring artifacts".
After all, if it's NOT artificial/manmade, then surely other such "natural" artifacts MUST exist ?



In fact, a few posts back I asked that very question of you ... and you seem to have conveniently forgotten to respond to it. So let me ask you once again ....



In fact, if you're so certain that the ring is just a natural formation e.g. lava tube .... then how about confirming it by producing an image of another lava tube that appears to be made of a highly reflective, very smooth and polished material.


Being so certain of YOUR conclusion and interpretation of the ring artifact, I'm quite certain that providing such examples will present NO dificulties for you ... so, I'm therefore looking forward to you presenting such examples shortly.

[edit on 4-9-2009 by tauristercus]

[edit on 4-9-2009 by tauristercus]



posted on Sep, 5 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauristercus
reply to post by Kryties
 

Well, finally ... you've fronted up and admitted that you're deliberately misrepresenting the image by intentionally rotating it 90 degrees away from it's original optimal viewing direction. Makes me wonder why you continuously refuse to attempt to analyze the image from it's original southerly viewing direction with NO INTRODUCED DISTORTION


What planet do you live on? By rotating the image 90 degrees to the right I have NOT introduced any distortion. Lets take an example - I have a map on the table of Australia. Now while I am looking at the map straight on, you are looking at it from the right. So I rotate the map on the table so that you are now looking at it straight on. This is EXACTLY what I did with the google map.

How you percieve that rotating this image is somehow distorting it is absolutely beyond me.





Actually, YOU'RE the one insisting categorically that my interpretation is erroneous and that it's nothing more than "an ice and lava formation", so the onus is on YOU as the debunker to show appropriate evidence and definitive examples of other similar "ring artifacts".

After all, if it's NOT artificial/manmade, then surely other such "natural" artifacts MUST exist ?


Hmmm. Let's see now shall we. The anomaly is located on an ICE-COVERED CONTINENT that has numerous examples of VOLCANIC ACTIVITY. To prove this I posted images of similar formations in the exact same area as your anomaly. Now unless YOU have a clear, distinct image of the area that you are not showing then YOUR BEST GUESS is that it is a ring structure. MY BEST GUESS is that due to the surrounding area it is more than likely an ice and lava formation. Applying Occam's Razor to the two options leaves MY opinion overwelmingly on top of yours.



In fact, if you're so certain that the ring is just a natural formation e.g. lava tube .... then how about confirming it by producing an image of another lava tube that appears to be made of a highly reflective, very smooth and polished material.


Unbelievable. So you have determined it to be a highly reflective, smooth polished metal from an extremely blurry Google Earth image? You might want to think what you are doing here Mr G.E. 'expert' as YOU are making a fundamental error in looking at a blurry image and thinking that you can see detail in it. This is called paredolia. The fact is that you have discounted the numerous other possible reasons that it slightly resembles a ring structure (ie: lava/ice formation, image artifacts, poor resolution resulting in image bleed etc etc) and have jumped straight to the conclusion that it absolutely MUST be a polished ring structure. If you were a scientist you would be laughed out of the lecture hall by now for such poor methods and reasoning.

By saying the onus is on me to prove it's not a highly reflective, polished metal ring you are indicating that you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it is in fact what you think it is. Do you have proof beyond a reasonable doubt? I didn't think so. A blurry Google Earth image is NOT proof as the resolution is simply not clear enough to determine that it is anything BUT a lava/ice formation in an area with numerous examples of similar structures.

THE ONUS HERE IS ACTUALLY ON YOU TO PROVE THAT A BLURRY BLOB IS MORE THAN AN ICE/LAVA FORMATION IN AN AREA ABUNDANT WITH LAVA AND ICE FORMATIONS.

If you want anyone to take you seriously about this then find a CLEAR IMAGE of the area and PROVE that it is a highly polished metallic ring structure.


On a final note, perhaps it is YOU who needs to go back and read posts more carefully. Specifically, my post where I admit that I believe in aliens and government cover-ups and that I'm a sci-fi fan but the reason I debunk hoaxes is so as to focus attention on the important cases. This, however, is definately NOT one. Not only have you made large assumptions based on blurry images, you have launched at me with a level of hostility that I do not appreciate or deserve. If your subsequent posts still show these hostile attributes then I shall be saying my goodbyes to you and reporting your thread. Please be warned.

[edit on 5/9/2009 by Kryties]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join