*Breaking News* Update From Baltic USO Exploration Team

reply to post by butcherguy


reply to post by gortex


If they are close to a press release and they tell you a few days before that it is for sure not a rock formation, then I personally think it is safe to believe that it is not just a natural rock formation. Rocks maybe, but not natural.

Call me a easy target, but if they lied to the public just days before releasing the info that makes them look really stupid, IMO. Don't you think.

If you two said from the beginning that it is a rock formation (like myself) then I think it's just common courtesy that we take back our claims, if proved wrong. I admit that this would be too early and I might have made a mistake to take back my claim already, as Gortex suggested, but if this proves to be much more than just some random naturally occurred rock formations, then my question is: Would you come back in here and take back your claim?

StringTh

By the way, in my opinion finding ruins down there or anything archeologically of significance is as big news as finding an UFO. It will be very difficult to explain how it got there.

StringTh

reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
That last picture looks like an old boxspring partly buried on bottom of a lake. Probably one of Odins Big ships from 2000 years ago. "Ship made from the uncut nails of men"

reply to post by butcherguy


My guess is yes... translation problem. My best guess is what was meant is 'not natural'.

reply to post by StringTh

post by StringTh
but if this proves to be much more than just some random naturally occurred rock formations, then my question is: Would you come back in here and take back your claim?

Yes , if its something other than rocks and they have verifiable proof of that then I will happily admit I was wrong , until then though the available evidence I've seen suggests I won't need to eat that slice of pie

Originally posted by StringTh
reply to post by butcherguy

 

reply to post by gortex

 

If they are close to a press release and they tell you a few days before that it is for sure not a rock formation, then I personally think it is safe to believe that it is not just a natural rock formation. Rocks maybe, but not natural.

Call me a easy target, but if they lied to the public just days before releasing the info that makes them look really stupid, IMO. Don't you think.

If you two said from the beginning that it is a rock formation (like myself) then I think it's just common courtesy that we take back our claims, if proved wrong. I admit that this would be too early and I might have made a mistake to take back my claim already, as Gortex suggested, but if this proves to be much more than just some random naturally occurred rock formations, then my question is: Would you come back in here and take back your claim?

StringTh

I don't believe that I have stated that they must be rocks. I believe that chances are that they are rocks (or one big rock). I would be thrilled if it turns out to be something that surprises me.

reply to post by fleabit


This means that it was created not naturally formed. Created by whom or what is not known to anyone save those that are exploring this site and maybe the stock holders and those funding the project at this time.


What interests me about all this is the boat they are using for this expedition. To me it seems too simple. Yes at this juncture it is a exploration/discovery period, and really only a simple boat able to carry the divers and equipment is needed, but by the previous statements of "setting up a submersible for tourists" and the simple ship being used it seems apparent to me that they have no intention or maybe don't have the capability of raising it from the Seas bottom. If this were an actual U.F.O. one would think they would have every intention of raising it and under water tours would have never been brought up. Here are the specifics of the Ancylus research vessel.

truthfall.com...: 1972 at Marinteknik Verkstads AB, Sweden. Yard number 6.
Material: Steel, aluminium superstructure.
Length: 24.17 metres (Lpp = 21.58 m, L = 22.08 metres).
Beam: 5.96 metres.
Draft: 1.85 metres in bow and 2.40 metres in stern (moulded draft 3.29 metres).
Tonnage: 108 GT och 32 NT.
Light ship: 86 tonnes.
Main engines: 2 x Scania DSI 11 R82 ABV, 2 x 240 bHp each engine with Twin-Disc SP-214-PI PTO belt connected to one shaft and a Säffle NAV 36 propeller with 1.0 metres diameter.
Aux. engines: 1 x Scania D5, 90 bHp + 1 x Yamaha 4TNE88-PG 22 bHp, Mecc Alte Spa ECO 28-1L/4 generator at 20 kVA, about 4,300 running hours.
Bow thruster: Hydraulic from main engine at about 30 bHp.
Engine room equipment: Electric Desmi 70- 50-220-O2 bilge pump 30 m³/h 5 bar, 2 x electric fire/bilge pumps with 4 m³/h each at 5 bar + small impeller bilge pump on starboard engine, Parka 271/2 24 kW boiler with BEO 10 V burner, Jowa M-87 15 ppm bilge water separator, Victron Skylla TG 24/50 battery charger.
Consumption: 60 -70 litres/hour at 10.5 knots.
Bunker: Diesel – 4.9 + 5.3 + 0.5, total of 10.7 m³
Fresh water – 4.25 m³
Ballast tanks – 12.1 tonnes lead + 978 kilo steel.
Waste oil – 2.0 m³
Septic – 1.19 m³
Grey water – 0.74 m³
Bilge water – 0.75 m³

If you think this is a mystery now, wait until the press release.

Originally posted by defuntion
reply to post by arianna

 

Originally posted by ariannaIn the image shown below a circle has been placed around some of the features which is leading me to believe that there are a large number of ancient structures on the seabed. I do not believe the structures were constructed by humans but by beings from another world - namely Mars. The 'doughnut' shapes can also be observed in many of the images returned from Mars and the Moon.

Rubbish.

Do you have any idea the amount of noise that is in these sonar images you are basing your "analysis" upon?

I am sorry, but you are making some huge leaps here.

And, furthermore, to base your current theory on other previous baseless Mars and Moon theories just compounds the bunk.

I honestly can't take any of this in a serious manner. For the next three months you should avoid any pictures that do not already have captions to explain to you what you are seeing.

edit on 14-6-2012 by defuntion because: Why do you think?

I suggest you wait until the dive team publish their findings before making harsh criticism of my claim. If I am incorrect with reference to my analysis, which is based on many years of research in the field of astroarchaeology, I will admit I was incorrect.

Most of the noise and artifacts were removed from the image.

My current theory is based on ancient artistic interpretations and astroarchaeological research that is currently on-going.

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by StringTh

 

post by StringTh
but if this proves to be much more than just some random naturally occurred rock formations, then my question is: Would you come back in here and take back your claim?

Yes , if its something other than rocks and they have verifiable proof of that then I will happily admit I was wrong , until then though the available evidence I've seen suggests I won't need to eat that slice of pie

I like that. You are a gentleman.

StringTh

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by StringTh
reply to post by butcherguy

 

reply to post by gortex

 

If they are close to a press release and they tell you a few days before that it is for sure not a rock formation, then I personally think it is safe to believe that it is not just a natural rock formation. Rocks maybe, but not natural.

Call me a easy target, but if they lied to the public just days before releasing the info that makes them look really stupid, IMO. Don't you think.

If you two said from the beginning that it is a rock formation (like myself) then I think it's just common courtesy that we take back our claims, if proved wrong. I admit that this would be too early and I might have made a mistake to take back my claim already, as Gortex suggested, but if this proves to be much more than just some random naturally occurred rock formations, then my question is: Would you come back in here and take back your claim?

StringTh

I don't believe that I have stated that they must be rocks. I believe that chances are that they are rocks (or one big rock). I would be thrilled if it turns out to be something that surprises me.

Fair enough. Then I was talking about someone like myself. I was pretty much sure that it's just rocks and as someone interested extremely in history of our earth, finding ruins would pretty much put us all back to square one. That would be amazing and frightening at the same time. At least in my job.

StringTh

Originally posted by JohnnyAnonymous
I'm currently trying to arrange an interview with the "Ocean X Team" for one of our future ATSLive Radio shows on Saturday evening.

I find the whole story and the 'possible find' very intriguing. If I'm successful in booking them, I'll be sure to post an update with the times and date for the interview.


Johnny

**LATEST UPDATE**

This is a copy and paste from their press officer in their email back to me, (which sounds like a generic reply).

Hi Johnny,

Thank you for your email!

The divers are now down and investigating the circle and reports from the ship say they are really amazed and there is definitely something unusual hiding at the seabed.

This makes it very difficult for them to do any interviews at all, but hopefully the week after. Let’s stay in touch for further news.

During next week we will give more information and pictures.


Best regards,
Josephine Görander | Press Officer

Sandhamnsgatan 63b | SE-115 28 Stockholm, Sweden

reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous


Thanks for your efforts. Much appreciated. To me it does not sound like a generic reply, I think it was specifically written to you as a response.

Makes it even more intriguing.

StringTh

reply to post by JohnnyAnonymous


I, for one appreciate your efforts. Thank you.
patiently looking forward to the end result of whatever may come of this subject.

reply to post by StringTh


Yes it is a 101% generic reply?

CC&P from there site?

LOL

Walking away from this thread,,sorry om my change of heart but this is all BS...

No offense to the poster or others ,but I smeel BS on this.

So, am I wrong or there was a similar answer last week 'something unusual is there' or smth like that - are they really playing with every1's patience? Like big noise for weeks over nothing, Attention begging?

Press Office Location?

I'm just curious and wondered what the area looked like...

Originally posted by arianna
Well folks, you just couldn't make this up.

In the past when I have zoomed out from an image features start to show that cannot be seen in the close view.

Intuition told me to rotate this close view of the round anomaly and zoom out as if viewing from a more distant viewpoint and what this process revealed is shown in the image below. I believe that when the dive team get close to the seabed location of the anomalies there will probably be some jaw-dropping onboard the submersible.

You may have to stare at the image for a while before the artistic features start to register.

Some said they see the most evil man to walk the earth! ....crazy....

What I see is this...

Im not going to comment on what I think this object is because by looking at this sonar picture it could be anything.Here is what I will comment on though. These guys who found this object said they would go back in June and they did. With the amt of money that it takes to fund this venture that means they were pretty sure there was something interesting down there. Maybe these people are so perplexed by what they found they do not know yet how to describe what they have found. If they are trying to milk this for as much money as they can well more power to them I would too.