Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15
1963

Baltic Anomaly Updates.

587 posts in this topic

The reason given for not providing samples of the object itself for testing is this: They report so far being unable to break off a piece from the object. The material seems to be harder than anticipated. It is reportedly still their aim to get material from the object, and submit it to testing. One wonders if the unusual hardness of the material is a significant fact in itself.

Edited by bison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the release of 9 new BlueView images people have tried to puzzle these together with the original sonar image of the anomaly. The BlueView sonar images gives approximately sizes that can be used to easier understand where each image is taken from. We managed to fit 3 (2) such pieces. The left piece dimensions was in the order of 14 m so it might not be correctly placed. We are keeping it until better solutions have been found. The result can be found below. Remember the diameter of the Baltic Anomaly is ~60 m (its height ~4m). [iMAGE].

http://thebalticanomaly.se/2012/09/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the samples being spoken about are reportedly loose rocks lying on top of the circular object. It is reasoned that they were transported by glaciers, and then dumped onto the object at the end of the last ice age. If, so, it is not surprising that they proved to be mostly ordinary rocks from this region. The real make or break tests will come when, or if, a sample of material from the object itself can be removed, and tested. The material of the objects is reported to be visibly different from ordinary rocks. If this is borne out by scientific tests, a whole world of possibilities might open up.

Of course you are quite correct Bison!...It would appear that I was victim to a bit of bad journalism when I doubted that the samples provided by Peter Lindberg for analysis weren't part of the actual anomaly! :blush:

As this critique of the article I posted clearly shows....The results of the analysis was the expected results by Lindberg and the X Team,... and in no way anything to do with the composition of the anomaly itself....

http://thebalticanomaly.se/the-baltic-anomaly-and-bad-journalism/

...doesn't this kind of fool-making journalism make you spit feathers! <_<

Cheers buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'DBunker', Are you suggesting that the anomaly is the place of origin of...

Anywhere but made on Earth would do just fine.

We dont need another BS "maybe", uncertain, vague or Inconclusive.

Edited by DBunker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :unsure2: ..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..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Underwater swamp gas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally there's been some updates: http://thebalticanomaly.se/news-mysterious-baltic-sea-object-analyzed-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):

thepuzzle_large.jpg

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):

object-enhanced-bottle-location.jpg

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

image-object1-1024x851.jpg

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)!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really sure what more of an update folks need:

http://doubtfulnews.com/2012/08/baltic-sea-object-is-most-likely-the-thing-we-said-all-along-natural-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.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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://thebalticanomaly.se/the-baltic-anomaly-and-bad-journalism/

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :clap: .

TiP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two shakes of the Rock slide says its rock ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Maybe because it needs a diaper?

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?... :unsure2:

Cheers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot about this... Yep wasn't expecting anything special, it was just a matter of time. Thanks for the update!

But I wonder if the Ocean X team will ever give in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?... :unsure2:

Cheers.

I think that their "remarkable ability to come up with half-truths and vague statements to lure in unsuspecting believers" tactic seems familiar,...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finally some news from my favourite last year's underwater story! thx for sharing, that leads me finally off the belief that whatever they found there is already in that big storage room, next to the ark of the covenant....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been aware of the finding of high temperature exposure in the material collected from the Baltic Sea object for some time. Before that, we had anecdotal accounts that suggested heat. The material collected so far has been rock found atop the disk-like object, not from the disk itself. The disk has proven surprisingly hard. It has not yet been possible to remove a specimen directly from it.

The meteorite explanation has also been around for some time. When we consider the proportions of the object -- 60 meters across, and 4 thick, it must give us pause. Those proportions describe a notably flat object, not much thicker than some coins. A very peculiar shape for a meteorite to assume.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an episode of The X-Files the other day and a alien ship crashed into the Baltic sea. Funny coincidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 15

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.