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.

 

USO disk discovered on sea bed between Sweden and Finland is actually a Russian Coastal Defense Vess

page: 2
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Thanks for your guess, but this post is very misleading. For my part, I will wait for an answer FROM THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN THE PROCESS OF EXPLORING IT.

Please, do not post something like this claiming you know the answer when its just a guess. Not to mention this guess has been made a number of times on other threads on this topic.

Also, I'm not saying its a spaceship. In fact, I find that possibility to be extremely unlikely. I like official confirmation, not some random guy comparing a circle on the ocean floor to a circle shaped boat. It could be a number of things. Lets just wait and see what comes up when the exploration team has completed its mission.

If you do even a few minutes research, you will find that it is actually unlikely this is the answer. The sizes of the two objects or off in comparison, there is no debris around the object as is usually found in other shipwrecks, and the image taken by the exploration team does not show any gun placements or any of the details seen on the image of the boat you have provided. Like I said, just wait.
edit on 4-8-2011 by OrchusGhule because: More thoughts




posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsAnOddFuture
I'm sorry, but simply posting a picture of a vessel that is shaped similar to what is in the sonar images proves absolutely nothing. It just raises the possibility of what it could be. Until a team dives down to it or surfaces it, all you can do is speculate.

You don't want believers to insist that it is a spacecraft, so don't insist that it is a sunken sea vessel.


Correcto!
Most of these treasure hunters are miticulous about their historical research into the area of the sea they are going to hopefully plunder. It is strange that they didn't know such a "vessel" was used in the area and further, didn't know that one had sunk in the area. --Finding such details is what they must do before they even get the funding to launch!

I'm wonder if this isn't some kind of a joke, PR stunt or even a scam to reach and acquire investors in their work.

I don't believe it is a UFO, but that possibility must remain open because they exist, and they have crashed.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I don't care what kind of propaganda comes out of Russia.

I still believe it is the Millennium Falcon



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Here’s another theory-didn’t read the other threads so don’t know if this has been posted before

news.discovery.com...=emnws1

Yet there's another theory: the USO is neither an extraterrestrial craft nor a natural feature but instead a rotating gun turret from a World War II era battleship. It's possible that an explosion on the ship’s deck could have blown it out of the deck ring where it was anchored and it slid into the ocean’s depths, more or less intact. Such an explosion would not necessarily have sunk the ship, so the lack of nearby wreckage may not be a mystery.

The turret-less ship might have made it back to port, or may have continued to another location where it eventually succumbed and sank. The top-heavy turret would likely have sunk with the cannons face down in the ocean floor, and would not necessarily have been seen in the sonar image. In fact, Lindberg and his crew were originally drawn to the area in search of Swedish merchant ships sunk by the German navy in World War I.

So what is it? Until someone actually goes down to search the object more closely (or recover it) -- a potentially time-consuming and expensive proposition -- we may never know. It’s a genuine mystery, and, as is often the case, the most mundane explanation may be the most likely.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I know there is a lot of confusion on this thing regarding the diameter. To the best of my knowledge it is in fact 60 Meters regardless of what has been said in the different media reports. I base that on what the salvage team is saying itself.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by remyrange
reply to post by burntoast
 


The official news release shows that the USO was about 60ft diameter, while the Russian Ship in my link was about 100ft. But there were others built, at various sizes, even one that served as a private yacht for the Tsar. Who knows what the actual diameter of one of these prototype experimental vessels was.


Stop it with the 60ft already, its 60 METERS. 60ft is wrong, wrongly reported by MSN etc...those people repeatedly said the "object" is 60 meters.



posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I considered these russian ships when the news first came out, but there are two problems IMO:
- The size doesnt match (the russian ships are 30m in diameter, the "UFO" 60m)
- There seems to be no reference to any of the two built being sunk, or going out to sea for that matter due not working that good.
edit on 5-8-2011 by merka because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
The dimensions of the anomaly discovered by Lindberg has a confirmed diameter of around 60 meters (180 feet). The vessel mentioned here is how large?

Link to official Lindberg blog:
story.oceanexplorer.se...
edit on 8-8-2011 by Sf18443 because: link url correction



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 06:36 AM
link   
From the links provided, the Russians only made 3 of these ships, and all three are accounted for, so unless there is some record of a fourth ship that somehow wound up near Sweden, than this explanation that it is one of these Russian ships is extremely unlikely.

Also, is there any record of a gun turret this large? And lost at Sea? The Bismark was only 36M wide.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I agree with this. I did some research on this also, you can see other parts of the ship if you enlarge the photo. Nothing but somebody trying to make a few bucks from donations!



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by remyrange
 


Im gonna star you cause you think ratioanlly and I like that, you say IF aliens exist, rather than 'they don't' or 'they do' and start with an object that can be explained before jumping to USO. So there are sane people and non-jerks afterall



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 

Bear in mind, "if" they exist, some people may actually KNOW they do. For them it would be illogical to say if.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Another important fact from the research vessels head guy is...

there were no Russian ships operating in the Baltic sea at that time..

these people do alot of research before doing any diving in an area where sunken anomalies are..



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
I read about this find in another thread that was closed by the Mods and based on the description of the anomalies, I think I know what they really found.

Do any of you remember the 1964 T.V. series "Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea? They had a futuristic submarine named the USOS Seaview and it had, contained within it's belly, a deployable "Flying Sub."





Used to be one of my favorite shows when I was a kid.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   


For comparison.

Also the ship the OP refers to was scrapped - it mentions this in the link provided in the opening post.

--

As for my opinions - I've watched a lot of sci-fi, so my imagination is running wild, but otherwise i'm clueless as to what this could be.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Hey guys !! I haven't posted in a while but I was wondering if there could be any calculations done to determine speed and weight based on the measurements the radar recorded. The object is 60 meters wide, and left a 400 meter skid mark.

like... a boat sinking would just sink, or currents could have drug it. but givin that data, could speed of entry be determined? We even know it's in 80 meters of water.

Hisshadow



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   
the radar pic actually reminds me of the Enterprise crash scene from First Contact




posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Oh and you have proof it's that lol? Idiot's man, you act as if you know for a fact that it is what you say. Clown.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b

From the links provided, the Russians only made 3 of these ships, and all three are accounted for, so unless there is some record of a fourth ship that somehow wound up near Sweden, than this explanation that it is one of these Russian ships is extremely unlikely.

Also, is there any record of a gun turret this large? And lost at Sea? The Bismark was only 36M wide.



exactly. Read it carefully OP.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pauligirl
Here’s another theory-didn’t read the other threads so don’t know if this has been posted before

news.discovery.com...=emnws1

Yet there's another theory: the USO is neither an extraterrestrial craft nor a natural feature but instead a rotating gun turret from a World War II era battleship. It's possible that an explosion on the ship’s deck could have blown it out of the deck ring where it was anchored and it slid into the ocean’s depths, more or less intact. Such an explosion would not necessarily have sunk the ship, so the lack of nearby wreckage may not be a mystery.

The turret-less ship might have made it back to port, or may have continued to another location where it eventually succumbed and sank. The top-heavy turret would likely have sunk with the cannons face down in the ocean floor, and would not necessarily have been seen in the sonar image. In fact, Lindberg and his crew were originally drawn to the area in search of Swedish merchant ships sunk by the German navy in World War I.

So what is it? Until someone actually goes down to search the object more closely (or recover it) -- a potentially time-consuming and expensive proposition -- we may never know. It’s a genuine mystery, and, as is often the case, the most mundane explanation may be the most likely.

a turret gun is not going to be 70 meters across.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join