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.

 

Huge Rectangular Box in the Amazon

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Sorry if this has already been discussed. I found it while searching Google earth and could find nothing about it on ATS.
A huge rectangular "box" in the Amazon forest looks like its partially submerged. Its about 0.65 miles on one side and 0.50 miles on the other. A huge straight wall sticking up out of the forest with an apparent depth of about 150 meters. It appears to be made of vertical sections of stone.

i997.photobucket.com...




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
That may be just the end of the satelite's data field. I see boxes like that all the time on Google. If it were anything interesting it would be censored. All the good stuff is censored now.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by earthdude
 


I don't think so. You can see the vertical structure of the walls and how the jungle has grown down into it. I cannot imagine any process by which what I see there would be a digital mistake of some kind.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The other thing is the shadow it casts. I haven't seen one before, but I also don't spend the hours on the web looking at these satelite photos.

Very interesting to see in the forrest anyway. It has to be huge to be seen in a sat photo, unless it is a DoD KeyHole shot.., but as I said, I am not an expert in this area.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


hmmmm !


Looks intriguing and my first thought was something to do with the mapping technique ... but as someone else already said 'would that cast a shadow' ?

I shall be watching this thread with interest ... thanks for posting it.


Woody



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by spirit_horse
The other thing is the shadow it casts.

THIS is what makes it interesting.
There is no arguing that it is casting some kind of immense shadow.

The only other explanation, is if the map does cut off there, and the area along that line is somehow elevated. Maybe the elevated area is very subtle, and not easily seen on this map. If the Sun was shining from, what looks like the West, it might cast a shadow like that.

The shadow even seems to slope. Either way, it's kind of cool.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by LASTofTheV8s]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
You're probably seeing a leftover bit of the civilizations that occupied the Amazonian interior prior to contact. We now know that from the atlantic to the Andes the rainforest was inhabited and cultivated by a huge population that succumbed to European diseases before any European ever knew they existed.

westinstenv.org...


From Cultivated Landscapes of Native Amazonia and the Andes by William Denevan: In Mojos there are four main types of savanna fields that were raised and drained for cultivation; (1) platform fields where earth was piled up to form low, rectangular flat surfaces, (2) narrow, ridged fields, (3) fields consisting of regularly spaced small mounds, and (4) fields in which ditches were dug to provide drainage. … I saw from the air or on aerial photographs an estimated 5,000 large platform fields, 6,00 ridged fields, and 24,000 ditched fields for a total of 35,000 individually drained fields, not to mention a dozen mound fields each containing hundreds of mounds. … I only flew over a portion of the region having fields; and identifying fields on aerial photographs is difficult, even when the exact location of the fields is known. Consequently, there are many more drained fields than represented by the above figures. A total of 100,000 linear drained fields occupying at least 6,000 ha (15,000 acres) of field surface spread unevenly over the western Beni is a minimum estimate. There could be several hundred thousand fields. Bill Denevan was the first to note the ancient cultivated fields. University of Pennsylvania archaeologist Clark Erickson has since discovered many more of these features in Mojos. That quantity of cultivated land, where manioc, maize, sweet potatoes, and cotton were probably grown, could have supported a sizable population of possibly several hundred thousand. Recent studies have also identified modified soils such as terra preta, the Amazon dark earths that were amended by charcoal and compost. Millions of acres of terra preta have been found in the allegedly “pristine” Amazon rainforest, indications of large sedentary civilizations that persisted for centuries prior to Columbus and the introduction of Eurasian diseases.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


Wow. That is a rather odd protrusion. Just a big ol' rectangle coming out of the jungle, even looks like the trees are on top of it. I don't think this is a relic though, it doesn't look "real". Until we get an aerial photo of the area showing it really is there I think this can be chocked up to an error within the Satellite image, mapping technique, etc. The fishy thing is the trees lifted up on top of it, that tells me it's probably just a mistake or error and somehow that little section was elevated way higher than the surrounding area.

Would be cool if it did turn out to be something spectacular though...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by expat2368
 


I would have to agree that is't an artifact within the satellite data. The pictures are pasted togeather after multiple shots and sometimes they don't line up exactly. The pic you showed is exactly what that looks like. If you search more areas, you will find quite a few of these I think.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Well, it's near a major tributary and near a lot of roads including a major highway (MT423) in the area, and given that a number of farms and logging roads are within 5 kilometers of it, I'd say "photography artifact." I can't find it in as good detail on the historical images but I did manage to locate it (there's no good way of showing it) in Bing Maps and I bet it's on other satellite imagery as well.

The others show nothing unusual there.

It's east of the town of "Sinop" in Brazil, if folks want to go look for it, near a hairpin turn on highway MT-423. I found satellite imagery (not Google, a different company) at bing.maps.com

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Byrd]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
if you "zoom out" using Google Maps on the internet (not GoogleEarth) you get a view from another photo source. In that view, the rectangle disappears -- although it would be large enough to be visible, even at this "zoomed out altitude".

The fact that it can't be seen even though it SHOULD be seen makes me think it is only an imaging problem. I can't explain the shadow in the OP's image, but I don't know the process by which those images are tiled.



[edit on 12/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
[edit on 22-12-2009 by MysterE]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   
I feel as if it's just the image stitching mechanism that google has in place. A computer gathers and organizes all of the satellite tiles, it's not hand made, and it can have flaws in it's programming logic.

Here are some factors to consider. How steep would that incline have to be in order for the shadow to turn true black? rgb(0,0,0) when the daylight itself will provide a default luminescence or ambient lighting to everything. That decline would have to be massive. The surrounding area doesn't look like it's offset at all as well.

We had a similar thread recently in which google's street view stitched together some pictures. Unfortunately a stick was lodged in front of the camera. This image actually scared a lot of people, as it appeared like a giant misshapen cloud was in the sky. Cool effect! But it was a false alarm.

It also made google's stitching method a little more visible. They utilize a lot of fading outwards from corners for blending the edges of tiles together. A popular method also utilized in many panoramic softwares



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Here are the coordinates for Google Earth.

I believe this to be a video anomaly. Here is a screenshot for GE.



11°14'5.10''S 53°46'.75"W

[edit on 22-12-2009 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I believe that google uses some sort of algorithm when they tile/stitch adjacent images to get a seamless representation. It could be "guesswork" from the software if it looked like, or got interpreted as, a protrusion in one of the images.

Mathematically it could be interpreted the way the OP reports it, but originally it's only a flaw in the binaries from one picture. The software then made it look natural, witch it is programmed to do.

This made sense to a computer, but to us it ended up looking like an anomaly...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Its perfectly in line with another road, mt-130


Not seen on google maps but its there on flashearth.com

www.flashearth.com...

I say artifact of some sort.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by watcher73]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Ok maybe not perfectly in line. but it runs at almost the exact same angle on the one edge.

If it was sticking up above the forest it would have been spotted by real eyes by now. Too many towns there for it to be anything that big.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


That, JohnPhoenix, is quite clearly an entry into the underworld - you have obviously stumbled across what the hollow earthers have been banging on about for years!




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
clearly an image flaw theres no way a cave that big can go on unseen this long. and i typically believe in anything and everything. but this ones obvious.

the only google image worth debating about at this very moment is the "coal mine entrance" on mars in another thread. see ya there.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Zeta Reticuli
 


I would think an image flaw except if you look on the outside of the short leg you can see foliage growing up the sides. I don't see how foliage could grow up the sides of an image flaw. The shadows on the inside and the way the foliage descends into the box.. just looks real to me.. but I am not an expert on digital photo stitching methods either..

Its about 15km from the road..you would think something like that would have been noticed by now.. just seems really strange to me.

Also the flashearth image does not let you zoom in close enough to tell anything.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join