Unusual ocean floor anomaly situated at a depth of 5 kms

page: 3
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
at school i dabble on google earth. i came across this some anomaly. i was wondering if anyone else saw this. I would be interested to know what it actually is whether it is a just a photo problem, or actually something real. very interesting indeed
edit on 13-6-2011 by Zachsfunk49 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
You've found Atlantis.

This wasn't suppose to happen yet.


Nice find by the way.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Sonar tracks on the sea bottom.






Not quite the same thing.




Just saying.
edit on 13-6-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
This may be an extraordinary find, or just another mystery. The next step is very important: will it just be reported here, commented upon, and then everyone moves on. Or will somebody take the effort to bring it before oceanographers and private deep-sea companies in Europe and North America and get some feet-on-the-sand in the ocean. Nice find, thanks for the research and thread.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Just searched around a bit more and was wondering if you seen this? Same area.

Quite a bit bigger and thought it might have been a rock formation but then looked at the bottom left corner and it's a little too perfect.

Maybe nothing?

52 00 13 01 N
18 00 24 39 W

Depth of 4139m so pretty deep.



edit on 13-6-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)


I mean really big.

edit on 13-6-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
An ancient city under water thats five times bigger than Greater London?

At what time was that area suppossedly dry by evolution standards. Oh, thats right, before man existed!

Think logically again. Unusual it definately is, but it's not a man made city for Petes sake.

Atlantis had been 'found' about seven times already in recent history! How many Atlantis's are there?

There are similar patterens near the Alutiens including triangles (also not natural?), off Greece, there's even giant catapillar tracks thru the Pacific! plus lots of other pictures (I even found an alien head)

The other thing is the yellow 'corners' overimposed don't match the actual 'city' corners
The 'streets' are 1.8 km wide !!! (think about this as they must have had some very big chariots)
The city 'blocks' are as big as 20km long by 10km wide !!!!! (well they were obviously a huge people)
It's under 5.5 km of water which means this 'city' was in existence before man 'evolved' (that being the longer time). Maybe this is where mermaids (giant ones) came from!

Am I cynical. Damn right. ATS is becoming a looney bin.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Actually we have no real idea when man truly evolved. If you believe the Bible, and i do...so Adam and Eve were created as the first of our current species, and God made them to be immortal, to live forever and know no age. We dont know how long they couldve lived before they fell. Maybe they lived for millions of years? If so maybe that could explain the set of human tracks found with dinosaur tracks imprinted on a sheer rock face in the Himalayas. By my reckoning whenever they fell it had to be around 200k to 12k years ago, because shortly after Kain slew Abel and went to the land of Nod to take a wife, which that woman was probably a neanderthal woman.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


Your argument about this being posted previously is somewhat petty. Imagine if someone posted a new thread on the JFK assassination, which I'm sure occurs at LEAST once a week. Would you be in there saying I cant believe you brought a new perspective to the JFK assassination, do you not think anyone has done this before. Seriously man get a break, I check ATS daily, and have seen many underwater anomaly threads, and this is by far the most in depth, and also intriguing.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
I am simply glad this is over 16,000ft underwater. If this is what it appears to be, and that much definition is still apparent after thousands of years of silt, mud and debris accumulating on top of it, then there is no reason to believe there aren't things under there that would be of great interest to salvage.

Fortunately, there is no submarine on Earth that can work at that depth in any meaningful or constructive way. I know man has been deeper in one shot dives into the Marianna Trench but that was nothing but touch/go off the bottom to say they'd been there. No one can seriously postulate excavation of a city that deep could be done using modern technology. Again, it's a big IF....but IF...that is a city, our species does not have the maturity or the responsibility to use anything that might still be down there at this point in our development and history. Good that it sit there as a mystery until we're able to handle what might be found.

Just my two cents, for what it's worth.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:59 AM
link   
AH good old google Earth does it again
when will people on here learn! Dont expect to find anything of value using it, it's just a giant database of images same with google sky and wwt, people have put this together people will have looked at the images if anything of REAL VALUE was on it it would have been found a long time ago!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
So lets say all the human population lived in these massive city's that are now underwater all we need to look for is the cemetery.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


This sonar explanation really generates more questions than answers.
I don't understand the need for sonar maps (which map ocean floors) of oceans to be juxtaposed alongside satellite images of land masses. I mean, if I zoom into a land mass, I get higher resolution images of the terrain. But what am I going to get to see if I zoom into the ocean ? I guess not many are looking to see maps of ocean floor when they are on Google Earth.
The link explains that lower resolution images of ocean beads are overlaid with higher resolution images. It would be interesting to see why these grid structures are not widespread in the Google Earth. I mean, ships must have been mapping large portions of ocean floors and why do these anomalies appear only at one place ?
Furthermore, the link gives the impression that the grid lines are the travel paths of the ships making the higher resolution images. Why do we need them ? We are not seeing the travel path of those strange Google Streetview camera cars , are we ? Why do we have to mark them in hte ocean maps ?
One explanation could be that the ocean maps are part of some other organization that has higher resolution images for those grid lines accessible by some means. I doubt if it is available to Google Earth.

On the man-made structure theory, the thickness of the grid would be several miles/kilometers ? Who would be building such thick walls/roads if they are something like those ?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Looks like an underwater archeological dig site...

Someone must be looking for their lost wallet


Or seriously, something really important. Maybe there's a buried spaceship in there and those robo-subs made those lines while excavating the ship.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Hmm.. it doesn't seem like a city. What you see when you look at the lines from archaeological sites, are locations walls were once present. You can see quite a few old cities and you can get a pretty good idea of the layout of the city.. where walls stood.. where larger structures stood, like temples, etc. Those are not streets.. those are walls, if it were a city. And in that city.. it would be an entire city of enclosed spaces in walls. Very strange, yes?

It doesn't look much like any ancient city I've seen. A bunch of rectangles.. this a good city does not make.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Gah..
I hope I never see this on ATS again.

They are NOT trawling tracks, they don't even exist except in the data.

Deep sea floor scans are performed by towing a RADAR rig behind a boat. This radar has a limited power, so can only scan a certain distance around the boat. Like a lawn-mower if you will; and just like a lawn-mower where the edges of each pass meet, we get anomalies.

There is NOTHING there.

(this particular scan was SONAR.. but the same applies)
edit on 14-6-2011 by myster0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
This topic of discussion has already been debunked thoroughly on this 2009 article by The Telegraph and this 2011 ATS thread. There is nothing left to discuss.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Atlantis?

Very interesting, I am curious as to what it is... It seems to be at the exact location where I believe Atlantis had been in the past.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:36 AM
link   
This has been on ATS before, as you are probably sick of being told, however you get a star and flag from me as I feel its a topic, which requires more attention. People need to investigate this further!



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I swear that if the people at Google hid a photo of ET inside google earth people would post on this forum proclaiming to have found a real alien.
It's google earth, ignore it. It's just a random error in their mapping system.





new topics
top topics
 
101
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join