580 replies to this topic

[1963]

bison, on 04 September 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Yes, there's certainly a good deal of 'imprecision' in science oriented journalism. This applies to both the skeptic and advocate sides of the divide, in my experience. My only advantage here is that I have been attending very closely to this Baltic Sea object story for quite some time. There is still plenty of opportunity for error, mainly caused, I think, by problems in communication.
The most intriguing aspect of the story at present is what the newly-released 'Blue view' sonar images seem to reveal. Everyone who has seen the first sonar image will recall the two tail-like extensions that protrude from the object, with a gap between them. The leftward, or lower extension, as the image is usually oriented, and the gap,  appear roughly rectangular in this first image. The new sonar image seems to confirm that the ends and sides of the gap and the extension are notably straight, forming nearly rectangular, symmetrical trapezoids.
   It seems a good test of the supposed artificiality of an object, that it looks more like something made by the hand of intelligence upon better, closer examination, than it did before. The famous 'Face on Mars' failed this test. The Baltic Sea object seems to have just passed it.

Yes, i've found the talk about 'Blue view sonar images' interesting, but to be honest Bison, I can't really see anything of note in them myself.    ..but I will defer to the greater knowledge of others in these matters..But I do however bear in mind the Yonaguni Island underwater structures over in the Japanese waters!....I once believed that there was a good chance that it could prove to be some long lost Oriental Atlantis, ...but now after much reading, I believe that there is an even better chance that it is in fact a natural structure!...But who knows for certain..?..And who knows for certain just what the Baltic Anomaly is..?...Not me!...Not yet anyway!  


Cheers buddy..

[Zeta Reticulum]

Underwater swamp gas

[Parsec]

Finally there's been some updates: http://thebalticanom...ntdtv/#more-462

It looks like the third expedition ended erlier because of bad weather, and they won't go there until next Spring.
As usual, they say nothing, unless some tiny, huge hints of what could lie down there.
It's interesting that now they're saying that the top of the first anomaly (the "cookie") isn't attached to the "pillar" and there's a huge two-meters high gap separating the two bodies. It looks like they're trying to subtle support the "spacecraft theory".

The site's last updates are quite interesting: finally I can understand better the famous 9 blueprints released at the end of August, and I admit that now they make much more sense to me (and are quite fascinating):



Actually, from this elaboration it really seems that the cookie has some 90° angles.


Assuming it's all true, here we can see the squared angles even better (it's a ROV image, I took this one from http://truthfall.com/, where there're two new interesting articles about the anomaly):




Further, here there's a sketch of the gap between the "cookie" and the "pillar" (also from Truthfall):



When I first read the article about the discovery last summer, I immediately thought it could be something huge.
When I read the news about their first expedition, I thought that it could really have been the biggest breakthrogh in history, a discovery that should've changed the world.
Now, I really don't know what to think. Obviously, like (almost) every one else here, I still do hope it's something genuine (whether spacecraft or ancient whoknowswho-made monument) and that we'll be able to know the truth very soon.

But after reading all the articles and interviews, the word "scam" comes very frequently to my mind. There are two possibilities:
1) they're completely incompetent, untrained, unprepared and naive (for instance, just read the Truthfall article: "We did not have the right material to fix the cable at site [of the ROV] and we do not send the divers down before we have checked with the ROV. So it was only one thing to do, leave for home port" Didn't they have duck tape with them? Didn't McGiver teach anything to them??)
2) they wanted to perpetrate a big scam, but they didn't think it would have had such a success and would have lasted so long, and now they don't know how to keep it going on, so they're buying time inventing some mysterious technical difficulties and weather impossibilities.

And I don't know which one is better.

Surely all the incidents and malfunctions are at least suspect, but equally it would be really a huge and expensive effort, just to make some money out of what, selling merchandising through their site? Or selling the rights to the tv station? Or even organizing deep sea tours for rich people? It wouldn't last long in any case.

Anyway, let's think positive and let's keep believing in them.
I think at this point we'll have to wait for the movie/documentary they're filming.
Who knows, if we'll be luky we'll have a nice present under the tree this year (and something tells me it will surely come out just on time)!

[1963]

Thanks for the input Parsec!...And something tells me that you may very well be correct about your christmas present!

Cheers.

[Rafterman]

Not really sure what more of an update folks need:

http://doubtfulnews....not-mysterious/

“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.”

[1963]

Rafterman, on 24 September 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

Not really sure what more of an update folks need:

http://doubtfulnews....not-mysterious/

“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.”

And that article is pretty much countered by this one I believe Rafterman...


http://thebalticanom...bad-journalism/


Cheers.

[tipotep]

No matter how hard I try I just can't see anything in any of pictures that I would class as strange .
I think they are trying to make something out of nothing ........

When they start talking about granite , sandstone & basaltic rock being found , seems more likely natural than ET man made , now if they were bringing up an unknown metal compound or something like that , then it will make front page.   .

TiP.

[DONTEATUS]

Two shakes of the Rock slide says its rock !

[Rafterman]

1963, on 24 September 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

And that article is pretty much countered by this one I believe Rafterman...


http://thebalticanom...bad-journalism/


Cheers.

Yes, there's also a lot of good articles out there countering the claims that Bigfoot exists and folks like Matt Moneymaker claim those are bad journalism too.

Sorry, I'll stick with the experts as opposed to sites trying to hawk Ocean X t-shirts.

[Parsec]

Rafterman, actually the experts didn't say anything definitive about the anomaly, nor they disproved the finding.
They do are baffled with it. It doesn't take a crashed spacecraft or an alleged pre-ice age building to do so. Anything it is, it's anyway something unique for that place.

To be more precise, it's the journalist that wrote the article that wanted to discredit the whole story and in a quite superficial and ignorant way (meaning that she ignored the topic she was writing about). For a detailed analisys, I leave you the link good 1963 linked for you.
Shortly, she gave here interpretation of facts, she didn't report them. If you read carefully what she wrote about Lindberg's interview, she uses a way to describe it (with verbs and adverbs) in which the reader is driven to the conclusion that he wants to make you think that's something unnatural. Actually, he doesn't state that it's necessarilly something artificial or "mysterious": quite the contrary, he says it could very well be something perfectly normal and natural.
Another very basic example: at the beginning of the article, she wrote

Quote

Peter Lindberg, head of the Ocean X Team (which made the "discovery")

she put the word "discovery" between quotes, in order to deride it. Unfortunately for here, they did find something, so, even if it's a simple bedrock, there's a discovery. It can be nothing special, but it still is a discovery. It's a semantic problem, subtle, but important.

As for your link (that quotes the original article), it isn't any better: they extrapolate a part of an (flawed) article to justify their theory (or better, their "I told you" line), dragging conclusions that don't exist (yet).

As you can read from my previous post, I'm not saying that Lindberg is honest, nor that the discovery is something more than prosaic.
WE just don't know yet. An intellectually honest person at this point can't say anything more. WE don't have all the informations on which we can base our judgement. Anyone can obviously have his own opinion, but that's what they're at the moment, just opinions. They have the same value as saying "I like football" "I prefer basketball". Our point of views. Not facts.

On the other hand, if you start from a prejudiced point of view, that's all another story.

[DONTEATUS]

BUt a Wet rock at the bottom is still a wet rock on the bottom.

[JoeyLuisLeel]

DONTEATUS, on 25 September 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

BUt a Wet rock at the bottom is still a wet rock on the bottom.

and it is still a natural formation...Nature is not entirely foolish...but in some cases precise...

[Abramelin]

They should pay for an expedition by Robert Ballard and his team.

I think the 'mystery' would have been solved very soon.

[Parsec]

DONTEATUS, on 25 September 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

BUt a Wet rock at the bottom is still a wet rock on the bottom.

Maybe because it needs a diaper?

Abramelin, on 25 September 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

They should pay for an expedition by Robert Ballard and his team.

I think the 'mystery' would have been solved very soon.

Or they could organize just a real scientific expedition. Maybe using Ocean X as advisors (they know where it is and have experience in those muddy waters)

[1963]

I was wondering if we would ever hear anything else about last years 'serial-cliffhanger', and found this on the web....


http://www.ufoeyes.c...-of-the-puzzle/


Sounds pretty reasonable to me...what say you guys?...


Cheers.