Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Doggerland


Sceptical believer

Recommended Posts

On 7/29/2021 at 2:45 AM, Abramelin said:

there should be many similar 'formations' in all submerged areas around the globe, like for instance the Persian Gulf or Sundaland.

Yes.  Here's a quick screengrab from the images.  I started to circle all the squared off bits.... but abandoned it - there are plenty more.:

1716497799_000-Doggerbank_squares.jpg.534322734118ba7e5e90061bf9803f34.jpg

Quote

Ànd visible using different resolutions

Every ORIGINAL image has a fixed resolution, ie a total number of pixels.  Once you zoom in by about 2-3x, you'll see the individual pixels - those little tiny individual squares in my image above.  Once you see them, you should stop enlarging.... as you are not seeing meaningful detail

But it's even more complicated, and there's a trap.  Most enlarging algorithms will guess at and insert more pixels when you zoom, so they end up giving a false, guessed-at impression that you are 'gaining' resolution.  You are not, you are simply seeing false details.  You can see this effect in your image back in this post.  See how it's kinda 'fuzzy', and the jaggies are lessened?  It's been enlarged using a 'guessing' type algorithm which is smoothing/corrupting the data.  You need to know about this, and how to deal with it if you are doing this sort of perilously-close-to-subjective 'analysis'.

It's also worth noting that when the compression effect is at higher levels, you will clearly see a pile of similarly sized squares - remember that black and white image earlier - count the pixels in those squares, both horizontally and vertically...? I count 16.

How many pixels are there in the most common basic jpeg compression-quantised block?  You guessed it.....

 

BTW, @Nobu, anything you wish to correct or add to?  :D 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2021 at 7:54 AM, ChrLzs said:

Yes.  Here's a quick screengrab from the images.  I started to circle all the squared off bits.... but abandoned it - there are plenty more.:

1716497799_000-Doggerbank_squares.jpg.534322734118ba7e5e90061bf9803f34.jpg

Every ORIGINAL image has a fixed resolution, ie a total number of pixels.  Once you zoom in by about 2-3x, you'll see the individual pixels - those little tiny individual squares in my image above.  Once you see them, you should stop enlarging.... as you are not seeing meaningful detail

But it's even more complicated, and there's a trap.  Most enlarging algorithms will guess at and insert more pixels when you zoom, so they end up giving a false, guessed-at impression that you are 'gaining' resolution.  You are not, you are simply seeing false details.  You can see this effect in your image back in this post.  See how it's kinda 'fuzzy', and the jaggies are lessened?  It's been enlarged using a 'guessing' type algorithm which is smoothing/corrupting the data.  You need to know about this, and how to deal with it if you are doing this sort of perilously-close-to-subjective 'analysis'.

It's also worth noting that when the compression effect is at higher levels, you will clearly see a pile of similarly sized squares - remember that black and white image earlier - count the pixels in those squares, both horizontally and vertically...? I count 16.

How many pixels are there in the most common basic jpeg compression-quantised block?  You guessed it.....

 

BTW, @Nobu, anything you wish to correct or add to?  :D 

ChrLsz, believe me, I respect your knowledge about digital photography, but... this

is what you posted yourself.

Why do yóu think that bathymetric/photographic artifact shows up in about every map I found online?

Here is the image you posted (and the formation is just above the red dot I added) :

 

 

1678917177_000-Doggerbank_video.jpg.5b4cd8a4508032a787019bab0728d21f.jpg.9f7d2cd8ef9ae0aabcbfac8c58ba2a02.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abramelin, I think I've got lost and am now missing the point you are making.  In that image, what exactly is the anomaly or issue?  Can you highlight and briefly (re-)summarise your theory?

Sorry, I'm tired and only half awake..  :sleepy:

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

In case someone is still interested: no, I never wrote the letter to Gaffney.

Why?

I found bathymetric/LiDar images that didn't really support my idea of a 'squarish' formation south-east of the most north-eastern tip of the Dogger Bank.

However, they were images of what lay below the sea floor.

Believe me, I haven't given up yet. It will just take a lot more time than I had anticipated.

In the meantime:

https://www.caitlingreen.org/2014/08/the-flooding-of-mesolithic-doggerland.html?m=1

Doggerland_maximum2.thumb.jpg.6908e627f8ace48af03e791702ced488.jpg

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2021 at 7:46 PM, Abramelin said:

Doggerland rises: exploring lands and livelihoods lost under the North Sea

https://archaeology.co.uk/articles/features/doggerland-rises.htm

Quote:

Many of the natural features, too, such as the Cross Sands Anomaly – an isolated, flat-topped rock of chalk measuring 165m long and 13m high, which would have been visible for miles around – were potentially wrapped up in myths and stories. Perhaps these were animate places, where spirits dwelt or with which peoples’ origins were associated, or even the physical manifestations of powerful deities? Other cherished locations would have been traditional hunting grounds connected by a network of paths and travel routes. The forced separation from such sites must have been a terrible blow to communities’ sense of identity.

 

The first picture shows the Cross Sands Anomaly, the second picture its location:

125-Figure4-6-1.pngecrec-fig-4-1-bathymetry-and-seabed-morp

Can anyone explain why the Cross Sands Anomaly ìs an anomaly?

It looks odd, that much I understand, but that cannot be the only reason why its official name includes its 'anomalousness'.

To me it looks a lot like a long barrow.

@Swede

  ?

 

ecrec-fig-4-15-cross-sands-anomaly-multibeam.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Can anyone explain why the Cross Sands Anomaly ìs an anomaly?

It looks odd, that much I understand, but that cannot be the only reason why its official name includes its 'anomalousness'.

To me it looks a lot like a long barrow.

Apparently no one has a clue what it is. And just about nothing - except what I reposted a day ago - can be found online.

And that's really strange; had this structure been located in the Med, the media would have been all over it.

Anyway, I found a comment on Leary's book that should tickle somone's exploring mind:

https://wildstory.co.uk/2016/06/22/brexit-6000-bc-the-lost-land-between-britain-and-europe/

Quote:

"One area of the North Sea bed is especially intriguing to Leary. Known now as the Cross Sands Anomaly, it’s a huge chalk slab, the size of a sports stadium. ‘It’s impossible to imagine it not being a feature of significance to people living around it,’ he says ‘This is Northsealand’s Uluru; its Rock of Gibraltar.’ Leary speculates that caves in the rock might have been sites of great significance and admits that possibility of exploring such sites is an almost irresistibly alluring one – but technologically still a fair way off."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Maybe there's no interest because there's nothing interesting there?

How do you know?

Someone has to go diving to know.

Like I said: had this anomaly been discovered in the Med, you bet your rear end divers, marine archeologists and the media would have been all over it.

But truth be told : the North Sea isn't the most inviting place to go diving. Not for scientists that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Abramelin said:

To me it looks a lot like a long barrow.

"A long barrow that really is *long*! Pimperne barrow stretches to 330 feet in length, rises to 10 feet high, and is about 90 feet wide at its widest point. The barrow can be roughly dated to 3500-4000 BC. "

https://www.britainexpress.com/attractions.htm?attraction=3111

This long barrow is smaller than the Crow Sands Anomaly, but not thàt much.

But at least  a couple of thousand years younger.

 

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

How do you know?

Someone has to go diving to know.

Like I said: had this anomaly been discovered in the Med, you bet your rear end divers, marine archeologists and the media would have been all over it.

But truth be told : the North Sea isn't the most inviting place to go diving. Not for scientists that is.

I don't know. I do know it appears to be of no interest to anyone with the means to check it out. 

Are you positive no one has explored that area? You previously asked why it's an anomaly. I think it's because it is a different item when compared to the general area.

Edited by Trelane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trelane said:

I don't know. I do know it appears to of no interest to anyone with the means to check it out. 

Are you positive no one has explored that area?

What I posted previously is all I could find online about this 'anomaly'.

Imagine, Trelane, they had a bathymetric/LiDAR image of a very large square structure on the bottom of the Med, just north of Egypt.

What do you think would have happened?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

What I posted previously is all I could find online about this 'anomaly'.

Imagine, Trelane, they had a bathymetric/LiDAR image of a very large square structure on the bottom of the Med, just north of Egypt.

What do you think would have happened?

 

Not sure. I suspect there's already been some extensive scanning and diving in that area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Not sure. I suspect there's already been some extensive scanning and diving in that area.

Believe me, I have searched the internet for a week or so. Well, yoù try it; maybe you have more luck than I had.

I have read blogs, tweets, papers, videos, but nada, nothing. Nothing at all concerning the anomaly.

And this thing shows up like a pimple on a bare butt.

Could it be about money? Or it's just that ... it isn't known in general? Well, as I have posted before, writers frequent this thread, and wrote their books about Doggerland.

Ànd, using some of the ideas/phantasies I posted here. I cannot prove that, all I can prove is that I posted about things a couple of years before these writers published their books.

Life sucks, and then you die.

< sigh >

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2022 at 3:24 PM, Abramelin said:

Can anyone explain why the Cross Sands Anomaly ìs an anomaly?

It looks odd, that much I understand, but that cannot be the only reason why its official name includes its 'anomalousness'.

To me it looks a lot like a long barrow.

@Swede

  ?

 

ecrec-fig-4-15-cross-sands-anomaly-multibeam.jpg

The feature would appear to be a relict outcrop related to the Dover chalk:

https://www.cliffsofdover.com/the-geology-of-the-cliffs-of-dover/

https://www.cliffsofdover.com/the-geology-of-the-cliffs-of-dover/mineral-chalk/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Cliffs_of_Dover

The morphology and orientation of the feature may suggest glacial and/or hydrological modification.

Interestingly enough, the feature is likely related to, or part of, the Santonian or Campanian formations. Given the location, the Campanian would be the higher probability.

The fore-mentioned formations are the sources of the lithic materials utilized for the production of gunflints. Can go into further detail.

Edit: Additional reference.

.

Edited by Swede
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swede said:

Can go into further detail.

Thank you, and please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Swede said:

The morphology and orientation of the feature may suggest glacial and/or hydrological modification.

It is exactly the orientation - almost perpendicular to sea currents - that makes me doubt a hydrological modification.

ecrec-fig-4-15-cross-sands-anomaly-multibeam.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Thank you, and please do.

The topic is actually quite involved and somewhat beyond the capacity of these pages. To provide a bit of additional, though focused, detail:

The European flints were formed in the late Cretaceous and appear in two primary formations. These formations are the Santonian (82-78 million years BP) and the Campanian (78-70 million years BP) (Hamilton and Emory 1988:43). Outcrops of these formations occur in both England and the European continent (Hamilton and Emory 1988:93). The geologic period of the deposition of the Santonian formation was an era of shallower basin levels than the later Campanian (Aubry 1972 in Hamilton and Emory 1988:50). Due to this variance in basin levels, it was speculated that the Santonian flints would present, in their interior structure, a higher percentage of shallow-water species such as bryozoans, mollusks, and benthic foraminifera (Hamilton and Emory 1988:50). Likewise, the Campanian formation was expected to contain “… more fine grained detrital sediment, planktonic foraminiferans, and depth preferring mollusks” (Hamilton and Emory 1988:52).

In efforts to further define the sources of European gunflint materials, thin section analysis of selected gunflints was conducted by Hamilton and Emory. These gunflints were attributed to being of English and French manufacture based primarily upon their knapping morphology and provenience. Also tested were flint ship-ballast cobbles believed to be from ships of English origin and samples from a flint outcrop in the Cher Valley of France (Hamilton and Emory 1988:73-87). Based upon these tests, Hamilton and Emory (1988:93-94) suggest that flints associated with a shallower water environment are more likely to be Continental (French, etc.) and flints reflecting a deeper water origin are more likely to be English.

.

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It is exactly the orientation - almost perpendicular to sea currents - that makes me doubt a hydrological modification.

ecrec-fig-4-15-cross-sands-anomaly-multibeam.jpg

While the eastern tip of the feature appears to reflect modern hydrological modification, one may wish to investigate prior conditions in regards to flowage impacts. While glaciation is likely a primary factor, such events as the Weald-Artois breachings and other glacial outwash events could have been involved in the morphology of the feature. Research project.

.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Swede said:

While the eastern tip of the feature appears to reflect modern hydrological modification, one may wish to investigate prior conditions in regards to flowage impacts. While glaciation is likely a primary factor, such events as the Weald-Artois breachings and other glacial outwash events could have been involved in the morphology of the feature. Research project.

.

From the bathymetric/LiDAR/side-scan maps I found in online (or requested) papers I learned that no ice sheets reached as far south as the Cross Sands anomaly.

 

I agree that the eastern tip of the anomaly - where it bends southwards - could indeed have been reshaped by hydrological modification (Storrega Slide?).

 

The Weald-Artois breachings would create very strong currents much further to the south, near what was to become the future Channel. But I have no idea if those currents would be strong enough to create the anomaly further north; and if the currents wère strong enough, the anomaly would be north-south oriënted, not west- east (I think).

 

Other glacial outwash events created many river-like channels. I found (a) map(s) that showed those channels. I will post it here, when I find it again.

Thanks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Other glacial outwash events created many river-like channels. I found (a) map(s) that showed those channels. I will post it here, when I find it again.

120427144-europemap-nc.png

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Searching for Ancient Settlements at the Bottom of the North Sea

LINK

And then look at the map where settlements are being suspected:

Brown_bank_map.jpg.816bb597beaf34717eec51cfe5522d23.jpg

Here's the Cross Sands Anomaly (part of a map posted earlier) :

20220111_163436.jpg.2a23dd42a1dd5f13c59e954561a730de.jpg

The Cross Sands Anomaly is in that circle close to the coast of Norfolk:

Screenshot_20220111-163237_Firefox.thumb.jpg.af3689543e7cdd49c2a1253116f4c017.jpg

 

No, I'm not crazy yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not much happening in this subforum of UM, so I thought it would be oké to post an artist's impression of those Weald-Artois breachings of some 400,000 years ago Swede mentioned in a former post:

Breaching-of-the-Weald-Artois-land-bridge-that-connects-continental-Europe-and-Britain.jpg.9e0dd8aa016b1274c2ccc349924e5abd.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/11/2022 at 6:07 AM, Abramelin said:

From the bathymetric/LiDAR/side-scan maps I found in online (or requested) papers I learned that no ice sheets reached as far south as the Cross Sands anomaly.

Presume that you are referring to the most recent (Devensian/Wurm) LGM? You may wish to study the extent of the earlier Riss/Mindel advance:

https://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html

Fifth map down. Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riss_glaciation

.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Swede said:

Presume that you are referring to the most recent (Devensian/Wurm) LGM? You may wish to study the extent of the earlier Riss/Mindel advance:

https://donsmaps.com/icemaps.html

Fifth map down. Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riss_glaciation

.

 

Sorry to say, but none of the images you posted show ice sheets extending past or near the Cross Sands Anomaly.

Btw., I am not suggesting humans created the anomaly. Only that is was already there, and that it may have been some sort of a holy place.

People may have buried their dead in caves that already existed in that chalk ridge.

All they may have done is reshape the structure into something resembling a boat (??).

 

europeanicesheetlgm.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2009 at 6:48 PM, Sceptical believer said:

this topic got brought up in the noah thread, and I felt like it deserved its own. its an interesting topic and one that touches on research Ive been conducting for several years.

Back in the day did we all not live on the sea floor before the flood came..

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.