Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mysterious structure found at bottom of ancient lake

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 



Scientists first made the discovery by accident in 2003


SEE what they do! WHY, why could they not report this simple info for near 10 years! selfish, they like to know what others don't know, and after 10 years what do they report? Not much after 10 years of study.




posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 


Not one clear pic of this alleged structure and they run this story? WTF ? That's impossible. I think
mainstream media runs some of these stories with a sarcastic attitude.
Maybe to get even with sites like ATS. I can see the editor LH/HAO
when he has a look and sees us howling over a story he pumped out
for this reason alone.

To the OP. You have to provide enough text to put meat on the bone STS.
Here's a flag and a star for trying cause it's not always easy. you might
consider what I've written above, as it could have been part of your OP
just the same.
edit on 21-4-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hisshadow
 


Didn't release the findings from 2003 until now, 10 years ago. Why report it now? looks like another story for the sake of a story.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I really don't see how a mound of rocks amounts to such an astonishing discovery. Humans were quite capable of piling rocks on top of one another for millions of years, even before the stone age.

It's not like they had a whole lot to do back then, hunt, fish, gather, pile rocks on top of one another. It really wasn't a complicated society.

And no, aliens didn't build it as an intergalactic bidet.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I wonder what this thing weighs because those rocks are heavy. The weight of it is probably the reason there is a lake there now. It might even be deliberate landscape sculpting for one reason or another.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by EA006
reply to post by hisshadow
 


Didn't release the findings from 2003 until now, 10 years ago. Why report it now? looks like another story for the sake of a story.


Indeed. Which means they've had 10 years to figure out what it is and if it's hitting the news only now, it's more than likely nothing of any great interest. Otherwise we would have heard about it years ago, or not at all.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by threewisemonkeys
 


Looks like it was not actually "spotted" by the 2003 sonar survey - rather it was "spotted" by some re-analysis of the data from that survey and then physically investigated, although the report as published does not give dates for when that was done
edit on 21-4-2013 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
If this was a crashed UFO, we'd never know about it. It'll be covered up and then some.



posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Beartracker16
Is this mound anywhere near a port?
Perhaps this was a designated area for trade ships to dump ballast before picking up cargo. [/quote

Interesting idea - as a navigator you would look for some landmarks to line before you knew that you had to dump ballast in order to avoid the decreasing depth of water. But wouldn't that make the shape elliptical rather than circular.

Perhaps it was used as a monastery. There is an islalnd in Norway called Munkholmen which was used for this purpose (goo.gl...)



posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 03:36 AM
link   
You refer to this being the second time a large circular formation has been discovered underwater in recent times. You are correct, but from what one can understand of the available data, pertaining to shape and physical construction of the objects in question, they are quite different.

The first object to which you refer, would be the object found under the Baltic sea. The main difference between the Baltic anomaly and this new discovery, is that where this new object is concerned, it appears to be made of many individual pieces. It is more like a pile of small objects, than a single solid mass. The Baltic anomaly however seems to have been either a single giant solid object, or a collection of large slabs. It has sides, angles, no peak, just flat planes.

They are clearly of completely different construction, and therefore were probably totally removed from one another in terms of the purpose of, and methodology of thier placement in thier current location. However, both remain very interesting finds, and I will be keeping an eye on both stories to see where they might lead.

Heres one of the various threads on the Baltic sea object, if anyone is interested.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

WARNING:
The first image in this thread is an artists illustration based on all available data at the time of its creation, and not an undersea photograph.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join