*Breaking News* Update From Baltic USO Exploration Team

Here are two views taken from the full sonar scan. The image has been cropped and reduced to 200 pixels high. Adjustments were made to the brightness and contrast. This creates a more distant view of the seabed. The second image is an inverted view of the first.

Do you see anything in the views that looks familiar?

Here is a translation of the latest press report for 15th June 2012.

On June 11 last year went nine professional divers on the Baltic Sea to locate shipwrecks. The divers ran in zigzag back and forth over a large area to search for a number of specific wrecks - when a large, round formation showed up on their scanner screen. They examined the object closely and what they found puzzled the whole world. Some of Sweden's leading researchers in marine archeology saw the first pictures from the circle that was taken with the so-called sonar, a scanner tool, but no one could answer what the pictures depicted.

Raises more questions

The mysterious discovery spread in the media worldwide, such as CNN reported on the Baltic Sea Mystery. So far no pictures from diving in the circle published. Now Express - the first newspaper - publish the first pictures from the dive at the mysterious object. A dive that was supposed to provide answers to the mystery - but instead brought even more questions.

Stefan Hogeborn has 20 years experience of diving and working as underwater photographer and dive instructor. Here he describes the first dive at the world famous circle in the Baltic Sea: The first thing we will see is some kind of rock formation that looks to be cast in cement, he said.

When they swim further, they see several rock formations.- It looks almost like a pearl necklace or that someone has tried to make a fireplace with an inch-sized rocks on the ocean floor.

The furnace-like rock formations on top of that which constitutes the large circle that was discovered with a scanner tool last year. Divers images shows that the circle in turn consist of several blocks formed by "rolls" or "mushrooms" that is attached to each other, forming the circle. Overall, the object is 60 meters long and about as wide.

When we had swum across the object, we get to the weird thing. Then it's like someone has pinched the mountain at the edge, as if you have breathed together two molds, and it sticks out between stone formers, said Stefan Hogeborn.


"Probably sandstone"

At the next dive, they took a sledgehammer to dislodge a piece of material. Stefan Hogeborn describes the sense of carbonized material. During the last dive divers discover an oblong hole in one and a half times the six inches that go into one of the rocks which form the circle.

I have never, ever, ever, seen anything like it, says Stefan Hogeborn. Expressen has let Martin Jakobsson, a professor of marine geology and geophysics at the University of Stockholm, see an image from the dive.

There is probably some kind of sandstone. When you look at the structure, it looks like it, he says. The samples from the discovery of the Baltic Sea has been sent for analysis.

Since we did not get any answers to the questions we asked ourselves, we have brought this to the experts who may be looking at the pieces we brought up, says Stefan Hogeborn.

Reference:

www.expressen.se...

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by micpsi

No. The joker is you who uses vacuous sarcasm to avoid the issue that the stone formations looked sufficiently anomalous to highly experienced divers for them to call their find "amazing". Your sarcasm does not cut it.

Sarcasm is a useful tool for the "knowledge management specialists" because it is effective and hard to defend against. Also, they would like to engage you emotionally and get you distraced and the thread off track.

Best defense against most "knowledge management specialists" is to ignore, and let the facts stand for themselves, and discuss them with real posters.

I would suggest that the real "knowledge management specialists" are Ocean-X, who have had all sorts of people sitting on the edge of their seats for the past year, breathlessly waiting for the confirmation that the Baltic Sea "anomaly" was an alien spaceship. Yes. I am being sarcastic, but its my way of responding to all the complete nonsense that pollutes the study of UFOs and does make it pretty much taint every authentic sighting with the baggage of all the crap that gets repeated over and over and over.

So they have discovered an "alien fireplace"? Wow! Knock me over with a feather!

So they have discovered an "alien fireplace"? Wow! Knock me over with a feather!

reply to post by bluestreak53

I believe that they used the term 'furnace-like rock formations.'

Ho hum...YAAAAWNN...yet another nothing.

I think it's interesting. I always thought it was a natural rock formation, but was hoping it was man-made in some way. Don't think it's man-made, but it still sounds very unique and rather cool.. wish I was diving it. Curious about the hole in the top - does it go down into the rock? Or is it just a short hole?

There is no need for sarcasm though - the object had a very peculiar shape. It was certainly worth investigating. I still think the military probably visited the sucker last year. Perhaps more than one military. Had that been an actual UFO, it would not have been there when they dove.

If you had a big iron structure and put it into the salty sea for five thousand years what would it be. Probably turn into something like reddish sandstone after that amount of time, It would look like rock and it would be rock.

Originally posted by rickymouse
If you had a big iron structure and put it into the salty sea for five thousand years what would it be. Probably turn into something like reddish sandstone after that amount of time, It would look like rock and it would be rock.

If you had reddish sandstone on the bottom of the ocean for 5,000 years....
It would look like reddish sandstone today.

reply to post by butcherguy


If you have a rock sitting on the ground in the woods for five thousand years it will get a coating similar to sandstone or cement on it. The clay minerals wash out leaving porous rock buildup that can be chipped off. In the ocean anything down there may be covered by something made of sandstone or coral. The little chimneys make me think coral or it could be the top of an old volcanic vent.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE

Originally posted by micpsi

No. The joker is you who uses vacuous sarcasm to avoid the issue that the stone formations looked sufficiently anomalous to highly experienced divers for them to call their find "amazing". Your sarcasm does not cut it.

Sarcasm is a useful tool for the "knowledge management specialists" because it is effective and hard to defend against. Also, they would like to engage you emotionally and get you distraced and the thread off track.

Best defense against most "knowledge management specialists" is to ignore, and let the facts stand for themselves, and discuss them with real posters.

I would suggest that the real "knowledge management specialists" are Ocean-X, who have had all sorts of people sitting on the edge of their seats for the past year, breathlessly waiting for the confirmation that the Baltic Sea "anomaly" was an alien spaceship. Yes. I am being sarcastic, but its my way of responding to all the complete nonsense that pollutes the study of UFOs and does make it pretty much taint every authentic sighting with the baggage of all the crap that gets repeated over and over and over.

So they have discovered an "alien fireplace"? Wow! Knock me over with a feather!

Science is only advanced by the exploration and research of anomalies. Obviously not all of these anomalies turn out to be anything significant, but some do - which lead sometimes to breakthroughs in knowledge.

Why do you get worked up over something so insignificant?

Why not get worked up about something worthwhile - like the bank bailout where $700 BILLION dollars went to the retards who got us into this mess - and it was your tax money.

Or get worked up about chemtrails, or poverty in the US, or starving kids in Africa.

Those are worthwhile issues to get worked up about.

If it is sandstone, it appears to be white-ish and not red. But I know little about underwater photography and don't know if the colors are true.





In any event:

in my opinion.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by butcherguy

 

If you have a rock sitting on the ground in the woods for five thousand years it will get a coating similar to sandstone or cement on it. The clay minerals wash out leaving porous rock buildup that can be chipped off. In the ocean anything down there may be covered by something made of sandstone or coral. The little chimneys make me think coral or it could be the top of an old volcanic vent.

edit on 15-6-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

That is a possibility.
I don't think it is the remains of a metal structure though.

Well, I guess those photos answered my question.

Originally posted by PlanetXisHERE


Why do you get worked up over something so insignificant?

Why not get worked up about something worthwhile - like the bank bailout where $700 BILLION dollars went to the retards who got us into this mess - and it was your tax money.

Or get worked up about chemtrails, or poverty in the US, or starving kids in Africa.

Really? Chemtrails? Yet another totally phony, made up conspiracy?
That is ATS for you. A place where all the crackpots congregate.

And I don't actually see anyone on ATS getting worked up over "the starving kids in Africa". They are too busy making up stories of mass detentions of gun loving patriots. Thankfully, I don't have to read that stuff on this forum.I come to this forum to read about UFOs. But 90% of the stuff that gets posted is pretty much junk.

So I don't have any right to complain about that?

By the way, the $700 billion was not my tax money as Canada was not part of the bailout. But rest assured, there is lots to complain about here also. But that would be off topic in a "Aliens and UFOs" forum.

I must admit, upon seeing the "rocks" for the first time last night I was disappointed. I was not disappointed because it was not a UFO as I knew it was not. Why? because the Governments and Militarys had no interest. I was disappointed because the "rocks" seemed so blah. Then I began to THINK.

These "rocks" appear to be intelligently placed. Why is this significant? Well, they had already stated that this structure predates the ice age placing this, at least at the end of the Pleistocene period. The Pleistocene period was 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago. The end of this period is when Man was replacing Neanderthal in the European area.

Again, why is this significant? During this period, Man was still hunter/gatherers and nomadic in nature according to our previous understanding. This is a thought out permanent constructed settlement at the time in history that it was thought Man was living in temporary make shift shelters. Because we do not know who built this structure it is safe to say it could have been built by Man or Neanderthal. Either way this discovery completely changes the History books and what we have understood of the advancement of Man.

I understand the disappointment for those that thought/hoped it was an U.F.O. but this discovery is almost as important and I think those of you who are throwing around the "I told you its was nothing but rocks" should stop and think about the implications of this discovery and what it means to our understanding of prehistoric Man and Neanderthals.

reply to post by Agarta

These "rocks" appear to be intelligently placed.

They might be.
I will need something more than I have seen so far to convince me of that.

Originally posted by Agarta
Again, why is this significant? During this period, Man was still hunter/gatherers and nomadic in nature according to our previous understanding. This is a thought out permanent constructed settlement at the time in history that it was thought Man was living in temporary make shift shelters. Because we do not know who built this structure it is safe to say it could have been built by Man or Neanderthal. Either way this discovery completely changes the History books and what we have understood of the advancement of Man.

I understand the disappointment for those that thought/hoped it was an U.F.O. but this discovery is almost as important and I think those of you who are throwing around the "I told you its was nothing but rocks" should stop and think about the implications of this discovery and what it means to our understanding of prehistoric Man and Neanderthals.

Once again, people are indulging in all sorts of pointless speculation. At this point, they ARE "nothing but rocks". How do you know this is in any way related to Neanderthals or "prehistoric man"?

There is nothing but speculation to back up the assertion that this is a "constructed settlement".

In any event, this has nothing to do with aliens and UFOs. Can these numerous assorted "Baltic Sea UFO" threads get moved to the "General Chit Chat" forum? (Since there is no geology forum)

If that is an old structure of some kind, then it's going to have layer upon layer of silt and sand on ot, thlose pictures don't say much, nor does it look like much would be under it if they did remove the silt. But, without doing it, we'll never know.

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Agarta
Again, why is this significant? During this period, Man was still hunter/gatherers and nomadic in nature according to our previous understanding. This is a thought out permanent constructed settlement at the time in history that it was thought Man was living in temporary make shift shelters. Because we do not know who built this structure it is safe to say it could have been built by Man or Neanderthal. Either way this discovery completely changes the History books and what we have understood of the advancement of Man.

I understand the disappointment for those that thought/hoped it was an U.F.O. but this discovery is almost as important and I think those of you who are throwing around the "I told you its was nothing but rocks" should stop and think about the implications of this discovery and what it means to our understanding of prehistoric Man and Neanderthals.

Once again, people are indulging in all sorts of pointless speculation. At this point, they ARE "nothing but rocks". How do you know this is in any way related to Neanderthals or "prehistoric man"?

There is nothing but speculation to back up the assertion that this is a "constructed settlement".

From the article released last night:

It looks almost like a pearl necklace or that someone has tried to make a fireplace with an inch-sized rocks on the ocean floor.

www.expressen.se...
From their website released today:

On top of the object they also found strange stone circle formations, almost looking like small fireplaces. The stones were covered in something resembling soot........“First we thought this was only stone, but this is something else. And since no volcanic activity has ever been reported in the Baltic Sea the find becomes even stranger. As laymen we can only speculate how this is made by nature, but this is the strangest thing I have ever experienced as a professional diver“

www.oceanexplorer.se...

I have had this open for a bit now looking for, I believe it was Peters statement that this object would have been here from before the last ice age this puts it during the Pleistocene period. I have been looking through this thread looking for the quote or the link to the article it is in. It must be in another I read so I will post this as is and continue to look until I find it and will update at that time.

Edit to add: I found it. It was in one of the "leaked emails" I quote

An other thing is that this place was under the ice during the ice age which probably means that is not an old volcano crater. A crater should have been flatten out by the ice.

iloapp.oceanexplorer.se... I quoted it here in this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reply to post by Agarta

I brought this idea up in another thread, didn't realize this was probably the "main" thread on this.. Anyway

I asked the question "had the are ever not been covered in water" because to me it almost looks similar to the giant rock sculptures in Utah/Arizona that have been shaped by the wind/rain etc. At one it was a river basin..

We see evidence all over of other early civilizations using their surroundings in housing and stuff- though whatever we are seeing is covered in silt and build up.

We find new things all the time that tell us man is a lot older than any of us think, why can't this be the remnants of another lost civilization of "rock dwellers" lol. So many possibilities


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com