Doggerland

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Vennemann tried his best to prove some Scandinavian legends originated in the Middle East.

But that's an altogether different story.

A 'story' some of the resident linguists would never agree with. But you know that already (OLB thread of before the clean-up).

 

I've seen a great deal of that hopeless task. Trying to pin legends down. Very speculative and based I believe on a belief that a good story can only be created once.

[Abramelin]

7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I've seen a great deal of that hopeless task. Trying to pin legends down. Very speculative and based I believe on a belief that a good story can only be created once.

For what it's worth (and it's raining cats and dogs here, so I'm having a break):

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkk16h

 

[Abramelin]

On 4/18/2021 at 9:33 AM, Abramelin said:

I did look at Denmark's economic fishing zone, and...

https://data.geus.dk/geusmap/?mapname=oil_and_gas&lang=en#baslay=&optlay=&extent=106265.625,5690210.9375,900015.625,6894726.5625&layers=samba_wellbores,dkterritorialgraense,oil_and_gas_basemap&filter_0=txt_search.part%3D

 

....it's not about fishing.

 

I think the 'mystery' has been solved.

< sigh >

 

But after reading (and trying to understand) a dozen papers, I start doubting again about this square formation and what it actually is.

On every map in every paper you will see the same thingy south of the eastern tip of the Dogger Bank.

Here a paper about the formation of the Dogger Bank as a moraine:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379117310612

And then look at the next image in that paper:

[Abramelin]

If it's nothing but a formation created by pipe lines and oil rigs, then the area should look like a jumbled chess board.

 

[Abramelin]

This formation on the bottem of the North Sea doesn't look natural:

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Abramelin

[Hanslune]

Anything from the outside sources you contacted?

[cormac mac airt]

2 hours ago, Abramelin said:

This formation on the bottem of the North Sea doesn't look natural:

 

 

 

 

Considering how lo-res the picture is I think it’s a bit premature to speculate how natural it is. JMO

cormac

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Anything from the outside sources you contacted?

Nada.

[Abramelin]

4 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Considering how lo-res the picture is I think it’s a bit premature to speculate how natural it is. JMO

cormac

This is the picture with a higher resolution:

 

[cormac mac airt]

24 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

This is the picture with a higher resolution:

 

That one isn’t really all that much better. It still lacks a considerable amount of detail. 
 

ETA:  Several other pictures of the general location DON’T show any such square shape so I’m thinking it may be some kind of artifact of whatever mapping process was used. Maybe even pareidolia. 
 

cormac

Edited May 24, 2021 by cormac mac airt

[Abramelin]

7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

That one isn’t really all that much better. It still lacks a considerable amount of detail. 
 

ETA:  Several other pictures of the general location DON’T show any such square shape so I’m thinking it may be some kind of artifact of whatever mapping process was used. Maybe even pareidolia. 
 

cormac

Pareidolia is maybe the best explanation.

But it's kind of odd that all of the recent bathymetric maps in the papers I read online show this squarish thing.

[cormac mac airt]

7 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Pareidolia is maybe the best explanation.

But it's kind of odd that all of the recent bathymetric maps in the papers I read online show this squarish thing.

I’ve seen several scans that don’t. So the question is does it exist or not, is it an artifact or not? There needs to be a MUCH better bathymetric scan to make any meaningful claims IMO. 
 

cormac

[Hanslune]

3 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’ve seen several scans that don’t. So the question is does it exist or not, is it an artifact or not? There needs to be a MUCH better bathymetric scan to make any meaningful claims IMO. 
 

cormac

For 45,000 L? we could rent a boat and go there with either a drone or underwater gear. What is the depth there?

I'm sure Harte would be willing to gut his retirement fund to support us.

[Abramelin]

10 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’ve seen several scans that don’t. So the question is does it exist or not, is it an artifact or not? There needs to be a MUCH better bathymetric scan to make any meaningful claims IMO. 
 

cormac

The scan in my former post is quite detailed.

And I have also seen - older - scans where the square formation doesn't show up.

But can you show me your example plus date of scan?

[Abramelin]

9 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

For 45,000 L? we could rent a boat and go there with either a drone or underwater gear. What is the depth there?

I'm sure Harte would be willing to gut his retirement fund to support us.

I know you are joking, but believe me: I would go.

And the depth? Must be something like 30 meters.

[Nobu]

You guys would be better served to target some exploratory oil and gas people in a bar and hit them up for intel. All of that has been mapped well over 100 times with very very hi res visuals.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Nobu

[Abramelin]

Just now, Nobu said:

You guys would be better served to target some exploratory oil and gas people in a bar and hit them up for intel. All of that has been mapped well over the 100 times with very very hi res visuals.

I know. And I posted the most detailed map of the area in a former post.

 

[cormac mac airt]

43 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I know. And I posted the most detailed map of the area in a former post.

 

I wouldn't call that squared area detailed really. GEBCO 2020 DOES NOT show that feature and the closest IMO that does actually doesn't make it a square. 

The source for that is a blown up picture at this link: 

https://www.marineregions.org/maps.php?album=3747&pic=115811

The little black dot is your point in the center of the alleged square feature. IMO it's more suggestive of a hill with a large runoff area to the east/decrease in elevation and a smaller one to the north and west. Nothing appears man-made. Source for the picture is EMODnet.

cormac

[Nobu]

55 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I know. And I posted the most detailed map of the area in a former post.

 

Yeah I saw this above. I’ve seen a few of these images in my life... what isn’t common with tech since 2000 is the delineation of detail. 
 

after my life in science and military- I  dialed in favors and worked as an oil and gas consultant for 15 years.

 

Your photo has issues.

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Nobu

[Abramelin]

38 minutes ago, Nobu said:

Yeah I saw this above. I’ve seen a few of these images in my life... what isn’t common with tech since 2000 is the delineation of detail. 
 

after my life in science and military- I  dialed in favors and worked as an oil and gas consultant for 15 years.

 

Your photo has issues.

 

 

 

That's because it is a composite map. The North Sea territory is shared by several countries: Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and Norway.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Abramelin

[Abramelin]

22 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I wouldn't call that squared area detailed really. GEBCO 2020 DOES NOT show that feature and the closest IMO that does actually doesn't make it a square. 

The source for that is a blown up picture at this link: 

https://www.marineregions.org/maps.php?album=3747&pic=115811

The little black dot is your point in the center of the alleged square feature. IMO it's more suggestive of a hill with a large runoff area to the east/decrease in elevation and a smaller one to the north and west. Nothing appears man-made. Source for the picture is EMODnet.

cormac

Your link shows me a map that hasn't a high resolution at all and not anything near to what I posted.

[cormac mac airt]

13 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Your link shows me a map that hasn't a high resolution at all and not anything near to what I posted.

Your map is pixelated at the area of and around the squar-ish structure. One can’t make out any meaningful details from that pixelation. Pixelation doesn’t qualify as anything approaching hi-resolution. 

cormac

[Abramelin]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Your map is pixelated at the area of and around the squar-ish structure. One can’t make out any meaningful details from that pixelation. Pixelation doesn’t qualify as anything approaching hi-resolution. 

cormac

If you look closely, you'll notice it's not just pixelation:

 

[Abramelin]

What intrigues me is, that whatever this thing is, it is at the western shore of the Paleo Elbe, a very strategic place to build a fortification (in the image it's the bulge left of the word 'Elbe') :

Edited May 24, 2021 by Abramelin

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

If you look closely, you'll notice it's not just pixelation:

 

It’s pixelated enough that it makes any claim of being a square structure meaningless. The picture I used, when viewed on a computer, gives enough detail to show a hill surrounded by a natural decrease in elevation that’s  greater on the eastern side than the west but in no way suggests it’s man-made. 
 

cormac