It looks like common jpeg compression artifact or pixelization to me.
(i.e., it's not really there).

quite obviously jpeg artifacts

Several years ago there was a very much adult artist from the Seattle area that hoaxed us about three or four times on other sites. He was good!

He first built up a page that supposedly was from a reputable source that had a machine display of an electronic signal supposedly from outside our world. To pull it and other attempts off, he had built, in one instance a web page for "Indianapolis University"--which does not exist in reality. You could go there and click through three or four pages of ad building with a large satellite dish on it, study courses, peoples names, pics, etc. It was totally bogus. But for the causual viewer, you would believe it. It seemed to have credibility. The guy went to a lot of work to pull these tricks on us. But it taught me a very good lesson. Some people are driven to con other people even when they get nothing out of it but the satisfaction of having done it.

This particular one here was so crude than anybody could easily at least suspect it was bogus.

But the lesson we learn--or should learn--is that too often we let what we want to believe cloud our brains from working as they should. Some of you should look back over your responses here and see how you just went hog wild in what you said based on what you want to believe. For those of you in that frame of mind, you are little different than what is commonly called the folks in the oppposite camp, the "sheeple." Perhaps a name for this side of that type of blind acceptance could be the "greenies?"

(For those that doubt where I stand, see my earlier post on this thread.)

Originally posted by Parallex

I hate to burst YOUR bubble - the coastline around Istanbul does indeed have submerged ruins, exhibiting linear patterns because there ARE sunken streets etc. Cairo in egypt is not near the coast??!?! I take it you mean Alexandria? If so, the Pharos lighthouse and a large area of urban sprawl from the classical era are located under the water on the coast. South Africa has many uninvestigated ruins and unusual phenomena on it's coastline and on land - it doesn't mean they aren't real!

Open minds folks, not closed ones.

The Para.

First, I must point out that I have a fascination with Atlantis. In fact, you could call me an atlantophile. So, I more than most would benefit from such a great find. Yet, here I am...calling BS.

Secondly, did you even check these sites yourself on Google Earth? In neigbouring sections the seabed can clearly be seen through the water above....yet no continuance of the 'ruins'. They stop at a ruler-straight boundary that continues through the surrounding land area and is quite obviously what you'd get from two photographic sources of varying quality.

Yes, I know that Cairo isn't on the coast but it is near enough to use as a starting point. In other words, I meant for people to check the coastline near it and I assumed that people would have enough sense to do so. SO, to be exact, the scan artifacts I mentioned for this area are slightly northwest of Idku, Al-Bahairu, Egypt. And the ones for South Africa are centered around Keurboomstrand.

Look, go on Google Earth and check out what I've said for yourself. If you still doubt after checking my 'references' and can provide definitive proof against my 'theory' then I'll acquiesce. Until then, what you are saying amounts to nothing more than opinion.

I know that we are frowning on nay sayers these days, but this just looks ridiculous.

To suggest that a city of that size could have existed for so long in the Caribbean and never get itself mapped on a US oceanographic survey or a sonar imaging scan is just plain unbelievable.

I don't buy this for a second.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Retseh]