*Breaking News* Update From Baltic USO Exploration Team

page: 25
130
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


It's a good example of misidentifying something natural and belivers ofc will say 'there is a buried alien spaceship right there'




posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor


as reported, Ocean X returned to port for the Midsummer (Midsommarafton and Midsommardagen) Holiday and will return back to the site next week


They would have a holiday instead of finding out what this at least intriguing thing is down there? It looks like BS and they are only trying to get attention, there must be nothing so special since they'd go back to some holiday and leave that. CRAP!


They were out there for 2 weeks, they had to go re supply and samples and images had to get to labs Yadda yadda yadda etc etc
would be like asking you to work independance day, veterans day, labour day etc etc. This an importand Holiday for them so cut them some slack. Let them analize what they found then post their findings... how would it look if they posted info then found out something differant, the skeptics would be discrediting everything after that



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Hi

I am glad we have people like you..
So dont take my reply wrong.

Quite obvious there is nothing there.
The Ocean xxx team,will take a look again,no set date obvious?(next week?)

You go by the sonar images and it was a 360 on what they were.
We have NOT seen any new sonar images either.

I hope your expertise is a far cry from this?
I dont even need college to know this is BS.

I have seen your "edits/3D's"(?) of the sonar images and what you think you see, I will not even comment to be polite.

If this was a big find there butt's would be glues there.
More than obvious, there dives teams did not check out a whole lot of anything!
And showed NOTHING.

Sure things take time,they are in no hurry either?
LOL

Your theories are highly questionable.
All they found is is a big rock boulder,and the the little boulders rocks on top and ther are not in a circle!

And there was an opening we saw but didnt have time to check it out?
What,2 dive teams, and a 180 feet of rock?

Its in international waters,they dont give a rats either..

I'll go out on a linb as you,,,this is pure BS,garbage,no city there and tired of the photo shops of the the dam sonar images.

I find them is questin to?



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
All I can say is, nobody knows how old or how long this "Thing" has been there... Think about this, 11,600 - 15,000 years ago During the last stages of the ice age the Baltic Seas was an ice lake. before that it was solid ground but as the ice Glacier Moved forward and then receeded, a Lake was formed until an opening to the ocean was made. Nobody knows who was there with early man or what early man did, only how they lived, hunted etc

Now, This object was discovered 90 metres down.. can you swim down that far even with propper equipment? it takes alot of air and a long time to get down there and back up.


here is a quote from Peter Lindberg Posted 7 hours ago


"The "meringue" of which the divers have taken a picture is laying on the circle. What looks like bottom besides it is actually the top of the circle it self. There is not only straight lined formations on the circle. I'm not really sure but I think the "meringue" is the smaller round object you can see up to the right on the "original" side scan sonar image from last year. I'm not really sure because the divers did not know where they were except someone near the outer edge of the circle.

The divers had only about 15 minutes down there before they had to start their ascend. The short time and the bad visibilty makes it very difficult for them to find something to take photos of. They also have to move very slow and gentle not to stir up the silt which will destroy the little visibility they have."


also, not only did they see 90* lines, but tool marks and what look like glyphs.

Peter Lindberg also says:


"
Hello friends, I have not written anything here in a while, can maybe be explained by the fact that I have really been out there... I will drop you some of my believes:

1. I do not believe that the circle is a wreckage of an flying craft from WWII till rescent time (or from some thousands of year back for that matter)

2. I do not believe the circle is a wreckage of any kind of known floating vessels from the past or from modern time.

3. I do not belive the cicle is a construction made by someone efter the ice age (submarine bases etc included).

4. I do belive the surface of the circle is made of mineral.

5. I do belive that the surface looks like concrete through the ROV camera but I do not belive it's made of concrete.

6. I do belive that the very strait lines and angular formations we can see on the side scan sonar image from last year really excists. The odd thing is that I thought, before this expedition that when we could get close these shapes maybe should appear not being so straight as on the side scan sonar image, in reality they are even straighter! It really looks like constructed parts on the circle.

7. I do belive it might have been volcanic activity in the area and even on (or in) the circle after the ice age, or before, but then it do not fit with what we know about the ice age.

8. I do belive that the circle "rests" on top of what looks like an pilar of rock, raising approx 8 meters above the surrounding bottom. The circle it self appears to be approx 4 meters thick. In other words, the top of the circle raises 12 meters above the surrounding bottom.

9. I do belive we must find out on the next expedition if the circle and the pilar are fixed in one piece or if they are sepparated in some way.

10. I do belive that the path, or the track, is a ridge raising slowly up from the bottom to a hight of approx 8 meters above the surrounding bottom. I also belive that the ridge is made of softer material than than the pilar and the circle.

What I do not belive because I know, is the fact that we found a round hole approx 25 cm in diamater going straight into the surface of the circle, how odd is not that? How deep? No idea, we just saw it for some seconds before we decided to back off to preserv the visibility for the divers that was going down later on. They did not find the hole though. It might be some more holes, at this moment we do not know.



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
Someone tell these diving fools to get a freeking camera and post some pics already



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Someone tell these diving fools to get a freeking camera and post some pics already


They need a sub, the only lights they get at the moment are what they bring down, and they are not bight enough. The dark water swallows up most of the light and if they move around to buch, they stir up the silt on the sea bed making it even more impossible to take a pic especially when they can only stay down for 15 minutes at a time.

a Sub is being brought in so chill out and have a few beers... nothing until the end of next week at least



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MollyMN
reply to post by arianna
 


Quite obvious there is nothing there.


And if there is nothing there, why is the Ocean X team prepared to spend time and money on their diving expedition? Obviously not to just look at some rocks on the seabed.

As I have already said, they need archaeologists onboard who are divers as well to make a positive evaluation.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Anything new happened regarding this? I haven't got time to hunt around (at work!)

Cheers,

Stu



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by arianna

Originally posted by MollyMN
reply to post by arianna
 


Quite obvious there is nothing there.


And if there is nothing there, why is the Ocean X team prepared to spend time and money on their diving expedition? Obviously not to just look at some rocks on the seabed.

As I have already said, they need archaeologists onboard who are divers as well to make a positive evaluation.


From what I read, they are being funded by a secret person/organization and yes some experts are coming along when they bring the sub



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by MoeFugga

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Someone tell these diving fools to get a freeking camera and post some pics already


They need a sub, the only lights they get at the moment are what they bring down, and they are not bight enough. The dark water swallows up most of the light and if they move around to buch, they stir up the silt on the sea bed making it even more impossible to take a pic especially when they can only stay down for 15 minutes at a time.

a Sub is being brought in so chill out and have a few beers... nothing until the end of next week at least


call James Cameron!!



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by badman6
call James Cameron!!


Why? Do you think James Cameron has any interest in this rock formation than any other?
I think that 98% of the stuff coming out from "Ocean X" is highly dubious hype. (The name "Ocean X" seems like a rip-off of "Space X" which actually has some real accomplishments building REAL rockets that go into orbit - rather than a record of manufacturing news stories from nothing.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Why not? Don't you think he would fund this, if he thought he could film it and make money off it? Maybe he is the secret donor?

I still think this is something man made, not a ship, but will question history, yet again.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


Why not? Don't you think he would fund this, if he thought he could film it and make money off it? Maybe he is the secret donor?

I still think this is something man made, not a ship, but will question history, yet again.


As I said, why would James Cameron join up with a bunch of low life publicity hounds who are making a big deal out out some ordinary rocks on the bottom of the Baltic? Do you think he is an idiot?

And so far there is no evidence to suggest this rock is man made.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I wrote them a not so nice email, I am waiting for a reply. The no-response may mean I was right to ask them if there is anything worth there or they just want to get attention. Or they did not want to tell.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I don't think many of you have done much diving. At least in low-vis water, over 100 feet deep. For one thing, you can't stay down very long at all, unless you decompress on the way back up (tie off tanks at different spots on the anchor line). Or use specialized equipment, which I doubt they have - it's incredibly expensive. I remember 130 foot dives where I was down a mere 12 minutes and had to go back up. The deeper you are, the faster your air is consumed (because it is compressed). With 5 foot visibility, it's very difficult to get the "big picture." It literally means you can see only 5 feet or less, nothing beyond that.. it's all murky and dark. Light doesn't really help - it's the sediment in the water causing the low vis.

Also, you have to move with EXTREME care. One wrong kick of your fin, and you can have neigh 0 visibility for a long time. Longer than you can stay down. Also, once you have been down, you can't keep just going down. Each dive increases the nitrogen in your system. You have to stay out for a prescribed amount of time to reduce the nitrogen in your body. Deeper or longer dives increase this amount. So unless they have a huge # of divers at their disposal, they are limited in the # of dives a day they can even make. Tie in weather, changing visibility, etc., and it's a very sketchy thing to have to do. You can't just pop down for a few hours and snap quality photos of the entire thing.

In San Francisco, when serving in the military, I had the honor of diving in the cisterns for the first time at Fort Point, a post civil war structure at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge. We were trying to find relics for the museum - which we did, but the dive was utterly dark. Vis was near 0. We had to feel our way around, to measure and find objects (we found stuff like canon loaders, cannonballs, and we broke a cask of gunpowder in one, making bad vis even worse). Visibility is a huge factor in dives. If they have low vis as stated, it's not surprising they are not making huge strides.

It still sounds interesting to me, and I'm hoping it is indeed some man-made structure. Only time will tell, but demanding instant results is ridiculous. You are not going to get them.
edit on 21-6-2012 by fleabit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Imtor
 



I do not think there is a case of mis-identification. It's obvious from the closer view shown below that this circular object is a construction of some description. The peculiar thing about the object is that it is not on the level so how could it have arrived at this location? Unfortunately I cannot scale the object but it is quite large.




Direct view:

i985.photobucket.com...



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imtor
I wrote them a not so nice email, I am waiting for a reply. The no-response may mean I was right to ask them if there is anything worth there or they just want to get attention. Or they did not want to tell.


The no-response may also mean that they ignore emails that are "not so nice" ; if anyone sends me emails like that, then i wont reply either.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 


Thank you for a level headed response to what is going on. It is amazing the degree of resentment published here by the haters that want answers right now. I have limited experience in diving and even in moderately shallow lakes you can run into problems with visability. I know when you are setting on the patio and looking out at 90 meters it seems a very short distance, but when you decend that far the effects on the human body are incredible. Also, if there is not any movement of the water due to currents, the sediment that is stirred up will hang for hours at a time, limiting visability. Again, thanks for an inciteful post and I wish I would have been there to dive with you under the Golden Gate Bridge. I have been there many times and I am sure there is a lot more down there.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RADAST
reply to post by fleabit
 


Thank you for a level headed response to what is going on. It is amazing the degree of resentment published here by the haters that want answers right now. I have limited experience in diving and even in moderately shallow lakes you can run into problems with visability. I know when you are setting on the patio and looking out at 90 meters it seems a very short distance, but when you decend that far the effects on the human body are incredible. Also, if there is not any movement of the water due to currents, the sediment that is stirred up will hang for hours at a time, limiting visability. Again, thanks for an inciteful post and I wish I would have been there to dive with you under the Golden Gate Bridge. I have been there many times and I am sure there is a lot more down there.


The "hate" is not directed at the delays in providing "answers right now". The "hate" is directed at the way they continue to provide all sorts of dubious and misleading claims without a shred of evidence to back it up. None of which would be happening if:
1) we had not gone through similar experiences with "hoax finds" from people claiming to have discovered anomolies using sonar (Many, many similarities to the 2006 "Great Lakes Dive Company" hoax have been noted.
2) if Ocean X had not over-hyped and promoted their "anomaly" in the first place as a discovery of a "crashed UFO" (a claim which now seems refuted completely by their statement that the "anomaly" is made of rock)
3) they would refrain from using over-hyped highly speculative terms in their press releases - describing what looks like a totally natural feature of the ocean floor as a "runway" - just as one example.

I agree that it could be difficult to get good photos in an area which has low visibility (I have done some under-water photography so I know the unique challenges). I also am well aware that the diving is "tech diving" well below normal non-decompression diving limits.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by fleabit
 

Your input is highly refreshing and I thank you for sharing your real-world knowledge with us. I was aware of the light and visibility issues, but only posses limited knowledge on the dive time details. I'm just curiously observing this thread and patiently awaiting further details. I'm not expecting anything life changing from it's outcome, just information...





top topics
 
130
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join