Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Mysterious Baltic Sea Object : an Update from Peter Lindberg "Ocean Explorers Team"

page: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 





My post was a comment on a post made by Gortex

In that case I will answer it




The Unknown Baltic sea object is 60 meters in diameter. It sits on an equally wide foundation at least 7 meters in height.

So we are told but I've seen no confirmation that the 60 meters is one object or multiple objects across 60 meters .



If it is a glacial erratic, it is the mother of all glacial erratics.

Maybe or maybe not ,Glacial erratics come in all shapes , sizes and compositions .

nwgeology.wordpress.com... s/



It is my personal opinion that any geologist that - based on what we know for now - says this is probably a glacial erratic, is guessing.

As I've already pointed out the history of the area with its many periods of Glaciation suggest that the formation probably is as a result of Glacial activity , the history of the Ocean X team suggest that they're willing to play the story for all its worth and information given by them probably isn't all that reliable .

We wait with baited breath for the movie .




edit on 29-8-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
as others have said, this was interesting at the start, but if it was *that* interesting, you'd expect more interest in it by *interested* parties.. only there are none; just some guys on a boat who are now making a documentary. No doubt this will go on for 3hrs and still answer no questions... I'm bored of this already, release the video, we'll watch the pirate version and forget about it....

personally, i think it's the plug that drains the ocean. the chain must be around there somewhere.
edit on 29-8-2012 by ceetee because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by LionOfGOD
reply to post by butcherguy
 


It is simply not possible to get a clear picture,
for the baltic sea has VERY low visibility under water.
Won´t matter how much light you get down there, the water won´t become any clearer.
I know, i´ve swam in it.

Watch the video in the OP of this Baltic UFO ATS thread.. It is plenty clear enough to see a rock pile. That is what they have given us. The thing is, it is clear enough. The video that they released is proof.

So far, we have seen a rock pile. Oh, and we have seen some artist's 'conception' of it.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I will have to concur with LionOfGOD on that one,

Peter Lindberg has said in interviews that at good days, when the conditions are optimal, they can see maybe 5 - 6 meters ahead. He also said that you get maybe one or two of those good days per month. So it's understandable that it is difficult to get shots of an object 60 meters in diameter.


Originally posted by gortex
As I've already pointed out the history of the area with its many periods of Glaciation suggest that the formation probably is as a result of Glacial activity , the history of the Ocean X team suggest that they're willing to play the story for all its worth and information given by them probably isn't all that reliable .


I hope you realize that I do not argue against that theory. It's a possibility.

What speaks against it is that the rock type that the divers describe does not correspond with what is found in the area of the Baltic sea, and that there is no other examples of similar rock (if that's what it is) formations.

Science isn't about picking the theory one thinks is the most plausible and defend that at all costs. It's about going with the data wherever it brings you, and right now there isn't much data to go on. Just some unsatisfactory footage and eye witness testimonies.

One of the blackened rocks was brought up, the geologist that looked it over was mystified and thought it could be volcanic rock. That doesn't really make any sense in the geological context, so we just have to wait for the sample analysis.

Personally I could imagine some type of hard packed sedimentary layer that has eroded all around, but that is also speculation since there is no other examples of this type of layering in the area.

I have no idea why the Ocean X Explorers' information shouldn't be reliable as you claim. After listening to all the interviews they've made so far they appear as credible to me, and they've never indulged in any type of speculation as to what this object might be.

Do they want to continue to investigate the object? Yes. Do they need money to do so? Yes. Is there a problem there?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 




So it's understandable that it is difficult to get shots of an object 60 meters in diameter.
Is everyone sleeping through the part where I ask for multiple photos to be taken at close range so that they can put together a PHOTOMOSAIC? I get it, they have to get up very close to take a clear pic of the rock pile, and they tell us we can't take a pic of the whole giant UFO, because it is way too big (oh, and it turns our electrical equipment off too, haha).

How about this? Take a lot of pics and let us put them together. It shouldn't be too hard for us, I mean we have the artist's renderings. That, and it looks just like the Millenium Falcon.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Heliocentric
 





Science isn't about picking the theory one thinks is the most plausible and defend that at all costs.

I'm not defending it at all costs but because I think it holds the most water (pardon the pun
)

As I said in a previous post the history of the area is it went through several glaciation episodes during the Pleistocene between 11,700 to 2,588,000 years ago , these episodes created the Baltic sea as we know it , given that I doubt it would be a man made structure as Ocean X had to sail out to it .

The only logical remaining explanation I can see is the one put forward , until a better theory comes up I'm sticking with glacial origin


edit on 29-8-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
If the following occurs by the time the documentary comes out , then we now its just a bunch of hype to make as much money as possible from the situation. No different than any other UFO documentary that lives of the hype to get people to watch and then delivers no definite results. The viewer is left with no more evidence than before and documentary proprietors laugh to the bank and plan their next over hyped adventure.

In tradition of previous documentaries , if the following occurs:
1. No additional facts or results from the analysis are released prior to the release of the document.
2. Continued hinting of wild speculations as to what the object could be.
3. No confirmation as to what the object is.
4. Additional capitalization of circumstances to make the object appear more mysterious than it is.

Than its MOST LIKELY a bunch of hype and nothing of value will be released.

Why, because if they had any real physical evidence of any wild discoveries they would have to be thoroughly dumb to not declare it in their commercials to get people to watch it.

Can you think of a better way to get people to watch your program or pay to interview you or buy the rights to use your footage , if you had actual evidence of some wild discovery and you showed it? What better way to get the WORLD to watch your program if you came on the national news and stated on your web page that you not only found an Alien space ship but you actually have physical proof and here are the pictures and the results of the exotic materials . Then you state for additional information and additional pictures of the object watch our up coming documentary.

When that happens from some accredited source then be ready for some breaking news. Until then,if you continue to get vague information and sensationalized hype prior to a release of some documentary then only expect to be entertained.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
If they can film the Titanic wreck and even map its debris fall out why cannot they film this area? Makes 1 think maybe they are busy down there inside it now



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


And of course the reason behind the unusual interference of their electrical equipment.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

In tradition of previous documentaries , if the following occurs:
1. No additional facts or results from the analysis are released prior to the release of the document.
2. Continued hinting of wild speculations as to what the object could be.
3. No confirmation as to what the object is.
4. Additional capitalization of circumstances to make the object appear more mysterious than it is.

Than its MOST LIKELY a bunch of hype and nothing of value will be released.





well spoken.
i feel the same way.

there was at one point...some speculation about them showing us only part of the actual sonar image that was originally made. as i recall there appeared to be a very long rectangular object next the object they have shown us.

has that been debunked?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Morg234
reply to post by gortex
 


And of course the reason behind the unusual interference of their electrical equipment.


Do you have any evidence other than the statements made that there really is unusual interference to their electrical equipment ? , or is it just a bit of back story to appeal to the curiosity of the prospective tourists they expect to ferry to the site .... and charge handsomely for the privilege .

The company have created a submarine that they hope will appeal to tourists and wannabe shipwreck hunters who will pay to take a trip down to the bottom of the Baltic Sea to see for themselves.
www.dailymail.co.uk...


Ask yourself why this mystery interference didn't effect the sonar scan or stop them taking pictures and no doubt video for the upcoming movie .



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The big red flag IMO for dismissing this as glacial till is the complete absence of any other till in the area.

Glacial till deposits look like a pile of debris you pushed across the floor with a broom. They are rocks of all sizes that are literally lifted and pushed for many, many miles by tremendous forces beyond our comprehension. When the glacier reaches its growth peak, and the ice slowly begins to recede, that's when the rocks are deposited in "strings" of glacial till. I see no signs of that here.

And if somehow this rock was deposited premature to the growth peak, there's no way it could have remained balanced atop a much smaller base like that with billions of metric tons of ice pressing and pushing on it.

The reason you dont see academia and/or state/federal agencies studying this object is simple. Cash. There is a pecking order and (long) procedure for acquiring funding in these agencies. They simply can not "up and go" to investigate anomalies, particularly one that involves deep sea diving and recon. The costs are immense. I will guarantee you this will be studied in the next several years by one of these agencies, simply from the geologic perspective if nothing else.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
If they can film the Titanic wreck and even map its debris fall out why cannot they film this area? Makes 1 think maybe they are busy down there inside it now


Could it have something to do with that Titanic is the world's most renowned ship wreck, that all major documentary film producers such as National Geographic, History Channel, Discovery Channel, PBS, wanted in on it, and that James Cameron stepped up as executive producer and made it with Disney Studios?

You can do a lot of things if you have the means and money to spend.

The Ocean X Explorer team is basically just two guys, a boat and some hired divers.


Originally posted by gortex
Do you have any evidence other than the statements made that there really is unusual interference to their electrical equipment ? , or is it just a bit of back story to appeal to the curiosity of the prospective tourists they expect to ferry to the site .... and charge handsomely for the privilege .


Peter Lindberg has stated that there was plenty of electronic malfunctioning in the vicinity of the object, he also stated that this happens frequently (electronics and water don't mix) on all dives and that he has no idea if this is somehow related to the object or not. He's sceptic to the whole idea.

In every interview made so far that issue is systematically brought up, and while Lindberg falls back on a neutral stance, there are plenty of armchair investigators on the internet speculating wildly as to why that is.

As to the tourism and charging handsomely for it that you see coming, that is just more of the same type of speculation.


Originally posted by dtrock78
The reason you dont see academia and/or state/federal agencies studying this object is simple. Cash.


If I've understood it right, the Ocean X Team has not publicly divulged the coordinates for the site. They're ship wreck salvage divers, and they proceed as such.
edit on 30-8-2012 by Heliocentric because: morning mist the pond still reflects last night



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric


Originally posted by gortex
Do you have any evidence other than the statements made that there really is unusual interference to their electrical equipment ? , or is it just a bit of back story to appeal to the curiosity of the prospective tourists they expect to ferry to the site .... and charge handsomely for the privilege .


Peter Lindberg has stated that there was plenty of electronic malfunctioning in the vicinity of the object, he also stated that this happens frequently (electronics and water don't mix) on all dives and that he has no idea if this is somehow related to the object or not. He's sceptic to the whole idea.

In every interview made so far that issue is systematically brought up, and while Lindberg falls back on a neutral stance, there are plenty of armchair investigators on the internet speculating wildly as to why that is.


So he agrees that there is basically nothing unusual at all about the fact that they are experiencing random failures in their equipment? So maybe people can stop speculating that the rock formation is emitting high powered electromagnetic radiation since there is no evidence at all to support this?


Originally posted by Heliocentric
If I've understood it right, the Ocean X Team has not publicly divulged the coordinates for the site. They're ship wreck salvage divers, and they proceed as such


So what is there to salvage from a rock formation?
No cases of champagne or Spanish gold buried under the rock. No, but they do still try to make this appear more mysterious than it is and feed speculation for the purposes of promoting their documentary.

So what does this have to do with aliens and UFOs? Other than the fact that Ocean X tried to make people think they had found an "ancient crashed alien spaceship" in the ocean by putting up highly deceptive illustrations on their website? And some people on this site are so naive that they actually still think that this might be something the aliens put there - despite there being so far no evidence to suggest this at all.
edit on 30-8-2012 by bluestreak53 because: grammer
edit on 30-8-2012 by bluestreak53 because: quote format



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
So he agrees that there is basically nothing unusual at all about the fact that they are experiencing random failures in their equipment? So maybe people can stop speculating that the rock formation is emitting high powered electromagnetic radiation since there is no evidence at all to support this?


Lindberg has stated that although certain electronic equipment seemed to work fine, they did not work when brought down to the object, and I believe some worked again when brought out of the zone. He noted it and mentioned it, but added that electronic equipment failures during dives happen all the time, and he has never speculated on the object being the cause, others have done that.


Originally posted by Heliocentric
If I've understood it right, the Ocean X Team has not publicly divulged the coordinates for the site. They're ship wreck salvage divers, and they proceed as such



Originally posted by bluestreak53
So what is there to salvage from a rock formation?
No cases of champagne or Spanish gold buried under the rock. No, but they do still try to make this appear more mysterious than it is and feed speculation for the purposes of promoting their documentary.


We don't know if it is a rock formation or not, you're jumping to conclusions. When the Ocean X Team received the first images of the object, all they knew (and still know) was that there was a round, 'unnatural' object on the sea floor, that could potentially be something to salvage. Why should they not go down to investigate? As the pictures leaked out to the press, internauts started comparing the object to the Millennium Falcon, then it snowballed into a Baltic Sea UFO, and the whole World Press went ape. The divers started getting calls from press agencies in the US, Japan, Russia, etc.


Originally posted by bluestreak53
So what does this have to do with aliens and UFOs? Other than the fact that Ocean X tried to make people think they had found an "ancient crashed alien spaceship" in the ocean by putting up highly deceptive illustrations on their website?


You really need to read up a little before you start posting.

They have never claimed that. Fact.

Other people in the press and on the internet has speculated in UFO, USO and what not. Fact.

All Lindberg has stated in regards to the nature of the object is that he thinks that the object is there since the last glacial melt, the small stones on top of the object is a geological indication of it. He has once or twice stated that it would be 'cool' if the object turned out to be man-made, but he has never stated believing it is man-made. The divers have spotted something that looks like stairs on the side of the object and he has pointed it out in several interviews. No more, no less. Fact.

You're making allegations that are erroneous, and by doing so you add to the media hype around the object, and to the confusion and abundant misinformation that already circulates.

As to the deceptive illustrations on their web site, do you care to point them out and explain how you've been deceived by them?



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by bluestreak53
So he agrees that there is basically nothing unusual at all about the fact that they are experiencing random failures in their equipment? So maybe people can stop speculating that the rock formation is emitting high powered electromagnetic radiation since there is no evidence at all to support this?


Lindberg has stated that although certain electronic equipment seemed to work fine, they did not work when brought down to the object, and I believe some worked again when brought out of the zone. He noted it and mentioned it, but added that electronic equipment failures during dives happen all the time, and he has never speculated on the object being the cause, others have done that.


Which is all totally normal for camera equipment used on dives. So what the big "woo hoo " mystery? You take a piece of electronic hardware down to deep ocean depths and gaskets malfunction. Water or moisture gets in and the electronics fail. You take it back up to the surface and all works fine. No experienced diver would suggest that this is unusual or abnormal.



Originally posted by Heliocentric
We don't know if it is a rock formation or not, you're jumping to conclusions. When the Ocean X Team received the first images of the object, all they knew (and still know) was that there was a round, 'unnatural' object on the sea floor, that could potentially be something to salvage.


There has so far been no evidence provided that would suggest that this is anything other than a natural rock formation. More about that at bottom of post.



Originally posted by Heliocentric
As to the deceptive illustrations on their web site, do you care to point them out and explain how you've been deceived by them?


Just go to their website and take a look at the illustration they use as a backdrop on their website. Highly deceptive and misleading since we know from the experts...




To double check, Life's Little Mysteries consulted that expert. Turns out, neither he, nor any of the other experts contacted about the Baltic Sea object, think there is anything mysterious about it. "It's good to hear critical voices about this 'Baltic Sea mystery,'" Brüchert wrote in an email. "What has been generously ignored by the Ocean-X team is that most of the samples they have brought up from the sea bottom are granites and gneisses and sandstones." These, he explains, are exactly what one would expect to see in a glacial basin, which is what the Baltic Sea is — a region carved out by glacial ice long ago. Along with the mundane rocks, the divers also gave him a single loose piece of basaltic rock, a type of rock that forms from hardened lava. This is out of place on the seafloor, but not unusual. "Because the whole northern Baltic region is so heavily influenced by glacial thawing processes, both the feature and the rock samples are likely to have formed in connection with glacial and postglacial processes," he wrote. "Possibly these rocks were transported there by glaciers." Glaciers often have rocks embedded in them. At the end of the Ice Age, when glaciers across Northern Europe melted, the rocks inside them dropped to the Earth's surface, leaving rocky deposits all over the place. These are sometimes called glacial erratics or balancing rocks. Lindberg and the Ocean X Team did not respond to a request for comment on the glacial deposit theory.


'Mysterious' Baltic Sea Object is a Glacial Deposit



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53
Which is all totally normal for camera equipment used on dives. So what the big "woo hoo " mystery? You take a piece of electronic hardware down to deep ocean depths and gaskets malfunction. Water or moisture gets in and the electronics fail. You take it back up to the surface and all works fine. No experienced diver would suggest that this is unusual or abnormal.


I'm not sure what "woo hoo" mystery you're referring to. I certainly haven't propagated any mystery theory in regards to the Baltic Sea object. Neither has the Ocean X Explorer team. On the contrary, I'm trying to debate with people who believe they know what the object is, based on a few sonar images, some blurry pictures and the diver's accounts.


Originally posted by bluestreak53
There has so far been no evidence provided that would suggest that this is anything other than a natural rock formation.


Which does not make it a rock formation. I hope you realize that. Nevertheless I'm open to the theory, once we have some tangible data and a better overview of the site.



Originally posted by Heliocentric
As to the deceptive illustrations on their web site, do you care to point them out and explain how you've been deceived by them?



Originally posted by bluestreak53
Just go to their website and take a look at the illustration they use as a backdrop on their website. Highly deceptive and misleading since we know from the experts...


...since we know from experts what? The backdrop of the Ocean X Explorer site is nothing than but a few lines forming rectangular patterns in 45 degree angles, The divers have reported such formations on top of the object, and that is an artist's rendering. What does it imply to you? To me it implies a few lines forming straight angle patterns...

Thank you for posting the article "'MYSTERIOUS' BALTIC SEA OBJECT IS A GLACIAL DEPOSIT". It's about time that we get a geological perspective on things. Unfortunately the article is poor on facts, which relates to that there isn't much data to go on.

The only thing really tangible in the article are the short statements of Volker Brüchert, erroneously stated by the article to be Associate Professor in Geology while in fact he is Associate Professor in Biogeochemistry (journalists that do not check facts or credentials do not impress me, how about you?).

Brüchert states :
My hypothesis is that this object, this structure was formed during the Ice Age many thousands of years ago.

A hypothesis is nothing but a work theory, it is a basic assumption, or an educated guess if you prefer.

It goes on :

"It's good to hear critical voices about this 'Baltic Sea mystery,'" Brüchert wrote in an email. "What has been generously ignored by the Ocean-X team is that most of the samples they have brought up from the sea bottom are granites and gneisses and sandstones."

Which sounds perfectly OK. During the first expedition (this summer), the Ocean X Team didn't manage to get any samples from the object itself, but only rocks from the foundation beneath and stones lying around the object. These are the rocks Brüchert has taken a look at. If they belong to the gelogical context of the area then fine.

The supposed basalt rock does not belong to the Baltic Sea region, but it could have been brought in with the ice sheets somehow, granted.

The second "expert" Daniel J. Fornari seems to be what the article claims he is. He on the other hand only makes a statement on how sonar images can be deceptive.

He states:

The sonar image has numerous artifacts in it that make it difficult to interpret, and I would not place too much confidence in any interpretation until a better processing is done and the details of the type of sonar and particulars are provided,

Which is just a way of saying that he needs more and better data to make any kind of evaluation.

The article concludes:

The expert analysis suggests this is just a glacial deposit that the Ocean X Team "discovered" in a low-resolution sonar scan.

It's a very thin soup they call an "expert analysis", and they only "suggest" a hypothesis.

All in all the article reads like an annoyed refutation of all the speculation around the Baltic Sea object. You cannot blame the Ocean X Team for this though. Blame the media and the internet, that's where everything snowballed and got out of hand.

So once again, we need more data before we can make any statements.



posted on Sep, 1 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heliocentric

So once again, we need more data before we can make any statements.


Hasn't been an impediment to you making repeated long posts arguing against everyone who says there is (at this point) no indication that this is anything more than a totally natural rock formation.

And as long as you get people putting up threads on this totally overhyped "discovery" you are going to have people challenging them to provide any sort of indication that this is one iota related to aliens or UFOs.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Originally posted by Heliocentric

So once again, we need more data before we can make any statements.


Hasn't been an impediment to you making repeated long posts arguing against everyone who says there is (at this point) no indication that this is anything more than a totally natural rock formation.


I'm not arguing against people who thinks this is a glacial erratic, it could very well be what it is. I'm arguing against people who sell theories they can't back up with scientific evidence as proven. Science isn't about assuming the most plausible hypothesis is correct, it's about going where the data leads you.

Based on the professional divers' account (and it's the only qualified account we have so far), the object is 60 meters in diameter, almost perfectly round, flat, lentil-shaped with straight grooves and 45 degrees angles on it, and concrete-ish. Even if this turns out to be a stone, it is a quite unique geological formation, and I personally feel Brüchert has a big mouth saying this is "not unusual". I think he should put his money where his mouth is and show us just one corresponding 60 meter wide, round, flat stone that has been transported hundreds of kilometers by the ice sheets without breaking up . They should be all over the place, right?

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be a hard-packed or fossilized sedimentary layer. Let's say a round, dried out lake bed. That would explain the grooves on the top, since dried out lake beds can form that type of patterns.

But do you know what? That's just a hypothesis. We'll find out later, when the real data comes in.


Originally posted by bluestreak53
And as long as you get people putting up threads on this totally overhyped "discovery" you are going to have people challenging them to provide any sort of indication that this is one iota related to aliens or UFOs.


Challenge them all you like, it's of no concern of me. I haven't even mentioned aliens, you have. But please stop accusing the Ocean X Team of things they haven't done or said. Verify the facts you have at your disposal and stick to them and you'll have my respect. Spread unproven assumptions around and I'll be there telling you they're nothing but assumptions.



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
Wasn't the word around town that this object was actually a sunken one of these? www.steelnavy.com...





new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join