Originally posted by malcr
Not quite looney bin. It most certainly is a magnet for people who just can't admit they are wrong! Psychologists should pay a visit here as cognitive
dissonance is in full flow. Your logic about the "tracks" is spot on and logic has been explained in many other threads on many other subjects BUT,
here's the bummer : it is a well known psychological phenomena that those with a conspiracy belief when confronted with cognitive dissonance (provoked
by your logic) will re-invent or modify the theory to explain or encompass contradictory details.
As opposed to those who refuse to believe
it's unusual re-inventing or modifying the theory to explain or encompass contradictory details?
"It's boats scratching the ocean floor!" "It's mapping anomalies!" Oh, which is it? I guess whichever one you want. Throw out 2 ridiculous
debunking theories and you're done!
How anyone could believe the "scratching the ocean floor" explanation is beyond me. Look at the freaking scale of the thing! These grooves would
essentially be visible from space, if the water wasn't there. They are hundreds of meters wide. What boat on earth would scratch a 200 meter-wide
groove in the ocean floor, and do it in an irregular-yet-rectangular grid pattern? Why? That's ludicrous.
The mapping-artifact explanation is slightly more reasonable, yet still doesn't hold water with me. Maybe you should actually bother to look at the
photos again before running your mouth any further. You can see clear definitions of light and shadow in all of the irregular rectangular blocks
in the grid
. I suppose you would say "this light and shadow is not real light and shadow, it's a CGI construct based on an imaginary light
source, in order to visualize the surface features" -- OK, fine, but that doesn't explain any of the following:
- Why is this supposed artifacting restricted to this one coherent rectangle? Yes, other rectangles exist elsewhere, but I don't see any anomalies in
any of the nearby mountains or plains that have anything like this. Was this mapping boat just having a really bad day?
- Why are there many gaps and unfinished segments INSIDE the rectangle, while the outside has a very clear definition?
- Why does the figure have vertical symmetry? On the right side you can see corners that run down a 45 degree angle, and pretty well mirror the area
- Why would the mapping artifacts be so irregularly spaced, if the mapping boat can maintain such a precise N/E/S/W orientation while running
- Why do many features of the underwater peaks show a much finer resolution than these "artifacts"?
- Why are the E/W lines so much straighter than the N/S lines? To me, this suggests an ancient method which was using the sun for guidance. The
closer the lines were to the sun, the more accurate their direction would be. Modern mappers would be using a GPS/compass.
- Why do many of the lines appear to divert around or end before reaching an underwater peak? The mapping boat wouldn't have to get out of the way of
a submerged hill or mountain peak.
- The lines are not perfectly regular. Therefore, the compiled image must use overlapping data. If these lines do not exist in reality, why were
there not more artificial-looking conflicts where the multiple data points (proper depth vs. false depth) disagreed?
I'm sure I could come up with more. Sorry, it doesn't wash with me. This may or may not be Atlantis, this may or may not even be an ancient city.
But I summarily reject your explanations thus far.
edit on 14-6-2011 by Observer99 because: addendum