It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

*very* mysterious mound in Russia. a cone where no cone should ever be!

page: 6
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 06:37 PM
link   

LABTECH767
reply to post by theclarificator55555
 


Unless it dissapeared because, a the planter over it to hide it or b they dug up whatever was under it and then planted over it to hide it, so I consider the excavation to have taken place.
Good information thank you.

In older satellite pictures is not covered by trees, it simply gone, you may find the same conic shape in satellite images if it were covered by grass or newly grow trees, but again, there is not such shape neither.




posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by freestonew
 




another photo. This one I like; gives a more immense feeling to the surrounding area!

freestone



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by freestonew
 


Those close-up pics are very interesting, and I agree that it looks like extreme pressures were involved. Can we be certain they were taken in this crater?

Like some others, I am skeptical of the 250 year age. The rocks don't appear to be weathered as I would expect from being exposed to that many Siberian winters. Plus, if it were anywhere near that old, the smaller grains would have tumbled/washed to the bottom leaving the largest rocks near the top.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   
It sure looks like water and pressure were involved with those formations. Think mud, and hot water, giant exploding geyser, that turned into a bubbling mud pot towards the end of activity.

Other theory I can think of: Underground Nuclear test, but I doubt it. I REALLY think this was a geothermal event.



haven123
interesting close up's





posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

MarioOnTheFly
yeah. He organized an expedition of a cinder cone. There is chopper time to pay...equipment and manpower. Not to even mention remoteness of the site.


Uh yeah, Geologists organize expeditions all the time. Do you assume that they just have volcanoes, or whatever they are studying at the time, right in their backyard? Many get funded through government grants or even Universities.


Just to get in Irkutsk daily...sure. After that...sky is the limit career wise once his discovery is pronounced a cinder cone...which he missed during his experimentations.


So claiming it is a crashed space craft would further his Geologist career? LMAO! I don't think so my friend.


Yeah. Makes sense.


I know it does, cause it's a mini cinder cone.


good one. Your perception hasn't failed you yet.


Don't get weird now. Sorry, I could not resist.

Ok then, What do you think it could be? ~$heopleNation
edit on 13-11-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Tsu322
 


I enjoy the geyser theory but if it was a geyser of that size there would be a gully for the run off below it. No real sign of that. It would also require an immense amount of pressure to move those rocks.
The waterfall theory might make sense IF the area was overgrown.
Questions
1) What is the normal amount of rain in this area? How long would it take the original shape to erode down hill into this pattern?
2) If we take the waterfall theory off the chart a bit could we have a glacier created geyser. Could the runoff come underground way up stream? That might explain the amount of power needed to make this mound.
Yes I'm contradicting myself a bit..
3) What is the elevation of this mound relative to the surrounding area? This view looks like it on the side of a hill. The only way runoff can get here is from above. If so some where above must be a corresponding hole to feed this. Any thoughts?
4) All of the water based theorys have a problem. Where is the physical effect from the run off?

Sorry guys I'm better at focusing the questions than absolute answers



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Char-LeeYou will perhaps remember the material making up the cinder cone you climbed, they are made up of very fine material, granular, ash and small stuff not huge chunks of cracked rock with sharp edges.


Yes I actually do Char-Lee, it was granular like you said, and not larger stones like in a few of the images here. It was so fine that my feet would sink to my ankles. Luckily I had backpacking boots on.

It was a very steep and difficult climb. More so cause you had to hike around a lake, then along Lassen's famous Fantastic lava beds (sunset there might look like it does on Mars), and into a desert on a trail that circles around the lava beds and up to the base of the Cinder Cone Volcano. Walking through the sand in the desert was misery after a few miles.

So I understand your point, it's just that I don't know of any law that says a cinder cone should only have small rocks instead of larger ones. Who knows though, it's just what I thought when I first viewed the images. I could be wrong.

Know what? I am going to locate my pictures of the one I climbed in Lassen and see if I notice any piles of rubble in the center. If I do, I will scan the image and post it here. This was back in 1997, but I have kept all my backpacking pictures since I was 15 years old, and I am now in my 40's. ~$heopleNation



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

11andrew34
Ok also on this page you can see a photo showing another good aerial angle.

www.grenswetenschap.nl...

You can see where a stream flowed to the top of this formation. I think after the glacier was gone, a stream continued on the ground along the same path (a path downcut through the glacier). Except then when it got to this formation, there was a rock wall in the way, so it split in two and flowed around the borders of this formation, which would cause erosion to further exaggerate the cone shape by creating channels along its borders.


I'm fairly experienced looking at glacial moraine. If this was glacially deposited, there wouldn't be a forrest growing around it. I've seen/hiked/camped in many areas in which retreating glaciers have deposited all kinds of odd rocks. This, however, doesn't appear to look like anything I have ever seen.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
This is very interesting; it doesn't appear to be any sort of impact crater, because an impact crater wouldn't leave that mound in the center... very intriguing. I like the comment speculating the cylindrical object may be The Ark of The Covenant though how/if it ended up in Russia is another issue in itself. I'm going to say that carbon dating to find the age of the mound is a good start but it certainly won't give a good enough answer. Carbon dating with the type of tree factored in would get you closer, because mature trees come from secondary succession which would be a good indicator of time; but that still is only telling you how old the flora on the mound is. To truly see how old the mound is you would need to look at what the mound is made of, the rocks or sand then you could get a good answer. I'd also like to point out that finding out what type of rock/sand is would be quite helpful as well, because unless it were some sort of uber rock/sand it would have slowly eroded away... Unless the mound used to be enormous...



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
As much as I would love thinking this were a space ship, I'm skeptical only because wouldn't we find more of these around the world of the same size and properties? I would assume that unless they landed on earth to take a leak, they would have landed a few more times to explore the rest of the world. I know there are other similar tales around the world but none which matches this mound.

I think once there are scientific research done about the properties of that site we'll get to know what it really is. From my understanding it's possible to estimate a date on when this happened and of course figure out the composition of the material.

I'm crossing my fingers it's aliens. haha



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
My best theory.

It looks FAR too young to be 250 years old, I men it barely looks a decade old, and the trees growing on the mound are clearly less than 20years old. So here is my theory:

According to the tree rings, there was a radioactive event in 1842 (not 250 years ago), so something was there in 1842 leaving radiation and causing the trees to grow much faster as indicated by their rings for 40 years after 1842.

It was discovered recently and being so remote, they used a heavylift helicopter to bring in a small/medium tunnel boring machine and bury whatever it was on the spot (whatever it was, was too heavy/dangerous/secret/radioactive to move). After boring a hole, they stuffed all the equipment inside, dynamited the entrance and left it for geologists to ponder what strange kind of natural formation this thing is....



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The Patomskiy Crater can be found at:
59.28449°N 116.58954°E

Most likely, it is the result of a gas pocket being pushed toward the surface and then releasing pressure.

Point in case, the mud volcano that formed in Pakistan in September.


An earthquake pushed a giant pocket of Methane toward the surface, forming a new island.

In the case of the Patomskiy Crater, there was probably a seismic event in the area in the 1700's which pushed the pocket upward. In the 1840's, it probably erupted, spewing out gas and then imploding, leaving the mound in the center.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
so what do you all believe this is? to me it looked like small extinct cinder cone. it's way to small to be a meteoric impact.



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Very interesting love the pics! That's pretty cool!



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Char-Lee

thruthseek3r

MysterX
reply to post by freestonew
 


Tunnel boring machine.

It came up, creating the crater, then for some reason went back down creating the mound in the middle...then stayed there, just under the surface becoming the mysterious cylindrical object.

But...250 years ago?

Is it possible that the Russians had an as yet unknown dabble with early tunnel boring machines (TBM's)?



It is actually funny you mention this possibility because another poster mentioned concerning the mystery of very deep cylindrical holes carved in rocks which you can not see the ending of while looking at it.

What is mind boggling if this were to be true, a tunnel boring machine, it would mean that some stuff is happening deep underground while we are not being told about it.

What does not fit the picture is the fact that it is dated 250 years ago!


Something is very mysterious about this whole thing I must admit.




Thruthseek3r


Well actually those holes don't keep going...
From jtma508 post...www.abovetopsecret.com...



On this pictures people go down to one of such holes but it just finishes with nothing.



It almost seems like samples, huge core drill samples are being taken from earth. They seem to be often in areas teeming with microbial life. Maybe someone is replenishing their planet like space craft.

As far as this OP subject I am about ready to go with something similar to, or "The Caldrons" as they are thought to rise and goes back under the surface in very out of the way places.


Thank you for the clarification, actually then with this in mind I am very curious how deep these holes really go as it was unfortunately not mentioned in the article you provided. In any way, it is still interesting to see how well done those holes, and they seems to go deep, were made, what equipment is capable of such thing?


Thruthseek3r



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Ivar_Karlsen
reply to post by zayonara
 


Well it might have been an Hydrothermal Explosion.

pubs.usgs.gov...





We would need some pictures of what actually these hydrothermal explosion would really cause in term of post-explosion rock formation in order to compare it with the pictures of the OP.


Thruthseek3r



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   

freestonew
reply to post by haven123
 


thank you all.

I have a few of my own observations, from being a "country boy"!

----those rocks in the above photo, look "tormented" they were not liquefied in high heat, like deep underground mountain roots are. the rocks look like they were subjected to immense pressure.

---wilderness. in a cold climate any man-made tracks, diggings, scratches, will be there for many years.
I see none.

--looks recent, as they argue.

---limestone-looking rock. not a place for volcanics.

----looks a bit like "someone/something made a crater from below and then came back and added to it, from below. thus that bulge.

no 9/11 dumpings. dumpings from another mine by air? 250 years ago?

I sense the vastness of the forest. This is Alone.

one of the expedition leaders got very dizzy and then sick. no one else did.
I read that for some of the tourists to the Egypt great pyramid; they enter and then get very dizzy and have to be rescued. In other wods, there is some type of "Etheric" energy being emitted here that only affects certain people. this implies an "emitter"!

perhaps one might study the lat and longitude of this crater and then see if this spot alines with worldly ley lines and power points!

freestone






Mmh, really? Interesting theory I must admit, if this is cause by a node of the earth grid, a minor one if this is the case, then i believe it could shed some light on something totally new.


Here is a picture of the earth grid, I have heard it had something to do with anti-gravity, be it or not, if this theory proves to be true, then some light should be shed on it.





Thruthseek3r



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   

8675309jenny
My best theory.

It looks FAR too young to be 250 years old, I men it barely looks a decade old, and the trees growing on the mound are clearly less than 20years old. So here is my theory:

According to the tree rings, there was a radioactive event in 1842 (not 250 years ago), so something was there in 1842 leaving radiation and causing the trees to grow much faster as indicated by their rings for 40 years after 1842.

It was discovered recently and being so remote, they used a heavylift helicopter to bring in a small/medium tunnel boring machine and bury whatever it was on the spot (whatever it was, was too heavy/dangerous/secret/radioactive to move). After boring a hole, they stuffed all the equipment inside, dynamited the entrance and left it for geologists to ponder what strange kind of natural formation this thing is....



When the first color photos of the crater were presented to the public it created a furore in the world of science. There appeared numerous versions: from secret Gulag’s mines to a spontaneous nuclear explosion of uranium ore.



Soon scientists refused the version of a uranium explosion – the background radiation was low there and no uranium was found nearby.



Source from the OP: Link



Thruthseek3r



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
This thing has me fascinated!

It's obvious the ground didn't rise because there would be thousands of felled trees littering the edge of the cone.

If it were underground nuclear testing there would be subsidence, not buildup.

Meteor strikes forced the earth outward in a ring and blow earth in close proximity airborne all over the place, plus there would be trees felled radially outward on all sides.

This is CLEARLY a mound of DEPOSITED material, whether from somewhere else or the location itself (most likely)



posted on Nov, 14 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


I've been posting in another forum about the cauldrons off and on for about a year or so up to now.

There's a group of us from around the world fantasising (sp?) about some wealthy people putting up the funding for a properly organised research mission to find and examine the cauldrons should they exist as described in folklore.

We have concluded the most practical way to go and excavate would be using either Russian heavy lift helicopters (several of them) each able to life people and equipment up to around 20 tonnes each helicopter, or possibly better still, using a heavy lift airship, capable of carrying up to 80 tonnes.

Portacabins for shelter, mechanical diggers and all other equipment could be transported easily to site using these things.

It would cost, but it would be worth it to solve the mystery once and for all wouldn't it?

So...if you happen to be a wealthy member, and you would like your name to be associated with an expedition to solve the mystery of the Russian cauldrons and a detour to investigate this mound...step up! There are quite a number of people who want to go and investigate, but don't have the resources to do it.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join