Thread: Google Earth Ocean

Hi guys! I have stumbled across a huge scyscraper in the deep sea. I know some claimed to have been found the Atlantis via Google Earth Ocean and it was all over the news. To what I have found looks much more real and strange. Is this a joke or something? I have the coordinates and the thing is still there!!! You may try to find it yourself and you will fail I guess.

ps I failed 3 times to post the pics! just only 3 pics and all the time the post has been denied either too much urls, either a very complicated procedure of attachment the files lol.

tired


Even if I'm trying to post a pic it says -
Post denied. New posts are limited by number of URLs it may contain and checked if it doesn't contain forbidden words.

can't attach a one pic as well. Someone pm me if he's interested I'll give the url of the pics

...

English is not my language.
There are lots of sites where you can see the weird pics from Google Earth. What I found is hard to believe. Very strange tower or scyscraper in the ocean. That's it.

It's the 1'st forum I have seen where it doesn't allow you to post a link or attach a picture at least I tried many times, that was the point, sorry.

Good Bye

Originally Posted by RomanK

It's the 1'st forum I have seen where it doesn't allow you to post a link or attach a file.

It is an anti-spam measure. You will be able to post a link after a small number of posts (I don't know what the number is; it might be 1).

Maybe you could post the link without the "http://" bit so the board doesn't recognise it as a link?

RomanK found "weird pics" at a "url" that are "a joke" and "hard to believe".

let's not be premature - i want to see where this is leading to

Sorry, too hasty.

What about coordinates?

Im wondering if its possibly one of the mapping "artifacts" that have popped up occasionally in the Ocean floor maps on google. Usually they are a result of the data not being processed right before the mapping gets there

//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/67b0/COHfzx9tBFg.jpg
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/67c2/DvEsoQYPKGE.jpg
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/67b9/WmNoyeQ-f4s.jpg


http:

Just make sure to put http: before //

Works?

tbh i don't really know what i'm looking at, but my building search image isn't triggered
-
could it be an imagery artefact ?

It is weird. The images are obviously computer generated, presumably from sonar (or radar?) data. I suppose if there was a data drop out it could create a big spike in the data, which could generate something like this. But I don't know anything about the data source or processing involved, so that is just a wild guess.

OK. Just found this: New Google Ocean Maps Dive Down Deep | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory which describes one data sourec.

As the best resolution is only 100m and the spike appears to be less than 3m across, it is almost certainly an artefact of some sort.

Info on the other data source here: Satellite Geodesy, IGPP, SIO, UCSD | Global Topography | Measured and estimated seafloor topography - I have only skimmed this, but it appears to be even lower resolution satellite data.

I'll let you know that tower is taller and bigger than that building in Dubai.

Originally Posted by RomanK

I'll let you know that tower is taller and bigger than that building in Dubai.

Well, it would be ... if it existed!

http:
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/6804/wFofQXxnTuc.jpg

The scale in the right corner says it's 1535 meters. The tower is at least twice as much taller than in Dubai.

Originally Posted by RomanK

http:
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/6804/wFofQXxnTuc.jpg

The scale in the right corner says it's 1535 meters. The tower is at least twice as much taller than in Dubai.

Yes, but look at your third image: it is less than 3m across. What can we conclude from this?

1) It is physically implausible that an object that narrow could be that tall.

2) It is an order of magnitude smaller than the best resolution available (and this might be an area mapped at much lower resolution).

Therefore, it is an artefact; presumably due to the loss/corruption of one or more data samples. This is hardly surprising.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RomanK

http:
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/6804/wFofQXxnTuc.jpg

The scale in the right corner says it's 1535 meters. The tower is at least twice as much taller than in Dubai.

Yes, but look at your third image: it is less than 3m across. What can we conclude from this?

1) It is physically implausible that an object that narrow could be that tall.

2) It is an order of magnitude smaller than the best resolution available (and this might be an area mapped at much lower resolution).

Therefore, it is an artefact; presumably due to the loss/corruption of one or more data samples. This is hardly surprising.

These 3 meters are very close to you, and you stand off the building 1 km or something. Do you understand it?

Do you understand what resolution means?

http:

//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/680d/YiA5EKU4Jy4.jpg

Look, it just almost 400 meter thick at the base
If it is an error but how there is nothing anything similar in the whole ocean???

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Do you understand what resolution means?

Do you ever use google earth and used to it's navigation! I will make just 2 pics in for comparison, wait a bit

Originally Posted by RomanK

These 3 meters are very close to you, and you stand off the building 1 km or something. Do you understand it?

Sorry, I don't understand what that means.

If it is an error but how there is nothing anything similar in the whole ocean???

How do you know there are not any other anomalies? Have you checked the entire data for every part of the oceans?

Why not email Google or the providers of the data and ask what it is?

I am willing to bet they will tell you it is an artefact due to data dropout.

Originally Posted by RomanK

Originally Posted by PhDemon

Do you understand what resolution means?

Do you ever use google earth and used to it's navigation! I will make just 2 pics in for comparison, wait a bit

No, but I've used a lot of satellite data and know if there is a feature smaller than the resolution of the instrument it is an artifact and is NOT REAL.

Well if it's not real but a simple error, then it's ok, end of discussion, just wanted to let u know guys for the sake of it

2 pics in comparison
I tried to put man about 150 meter away from the object
http:
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/6816/sdnVKF1e5uE.jpg

http:
//cs314622.vk.me/v314622817/681f/LngOFPdkia0.jpg

Nothing you would find anything similar and strange in the whole ocean.

And what is a comparison of a building and an instrumental artifact that is a similar shape meant to show? It is an ARTIFACT.

Originally Posted by RomanK

ok, end of discussion

Good.

Originally Posted by RomanK

Nothing you would find anything similar and strange in the whole ocean.

How do you know?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RomanK

Nothing you would find anything similar and strange in the whole ocean.

How do you know?

I'll get back in a month or so, would be cool to see if someone finds that tower or anything similar!!! A pyramid, or a palace, aeroport may be))))

It's an artifact, what is wrong with you?

In RomanK's second post he notes that English is not his native language. Several of you, despite this, persist in saying it is an artefact. The commonest use of artefact - and the meaning most likely to be found by someone using a translator program, or using a dictionary - is to describe an artificial object. So, if I may echo PhDemon, what is wrong with you all. Could you not take the time to explain in simple terms about resolution, data corruption, and artefacts? I'd like to see a little more tolerance of the posts of new members in general and those operating in a foreign language in particular.

Point taken, I missed the English being a second language thing and sometimes forget others aren't familar with the words I use at work everyday. I'll try and be more patient.

Good point, John.

I must admit I never normally think of the "man made object" sense of artefact (unless I am reading an article on archaeology, which isn't often). The "artificial" (false) result from data processing is the meaning that is more familiar to me.

So I'm pleased (and surprised) to see I avoided it in my first reply, at least. I did consider writing more about how such an error could arise, but I know so little about the processing involved (approximately zero) that it would have been complete guesswork, so it didn't seem useful.

But my guess is...

Data is gathered from seismographic surveys. This forms some sort of grid of data points representing the depth of the ocean floor at various points. At best, these points may be 200m apart. At worst (the satellite data) they may be 1 or 2 km apart.

These points will be processed to produce a smoothed version of the terrain.

If noise or other error (which could be from when the data was collected, stored, transmitted, etc) changes the value of one data point, then the processing will attempt to smooth the change between that value and the surrounding ones. This would explain why this peak is circular and why it has a smooth curve at the bottom. (You might think it would be better if the software removed, or at least flagged up, such extreme differences in value).

The width at the base (400 ~ 500 m) is, presumably, related to the resolution of the data points in this area.

The height might correspond to the ocean depth at that point (i.e. the correct depth value has been replaced with zero).

</end of guess>

If you explore the ocean it resembles the Tibet, hills and huge mountains covered under the ocean here and there and that is for thousand and thousand miles away, 100000+ Tibets in one. I have never stumbled across such a Tower nowhere, that's why it looked and looks so strange to me. A simple error in data processing would have sounded a very easy excuse for me.

"Excuse"? An excuse for what?

RomanK, I have just defended you against some unwarranted sniping by other members. Now you appear to be saying that you think the tower may actually be real and we are denying this because we are close minded. I hope I have misunderstood you.

No, I never meant that you are close minded. Don't be confused.

I think my point is very well put in my previous messege. May be someone of you will contact some serious man in the business and shoot an email??? Google Earth staff or something? CNN, BBC? The sooner the better. I am just simply can't put two words together to sound serious etc.

Originally Posted by RomanK

Well if it's not real but a simple error, then it's ok, end of discussion, just wanted to let u know guys for the sake of it

2 pics in comparison
I tried to put man about 150 meter away from the object

first of all, both are computer-generated images
secondly, the second one doesn't have any depth, so doesn't even look like a computer-generated replica of a solid object

my money is on it being a CAF or computer-assisted fluke

The tower is at least 4 times higher than scyscraper in Dubay.

again, the top picture looks as if it has a hiatus which you interpret as a solid structure
it's almost as if 2 pictures were placed next to one another and left a gap

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000001 % of the Ocean has that error in the image of the huge Tower? That's very intredasting my friends)))

Originally Posted by RomanK

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000001 % of the Ocean has that error in the image of the huge Tower? That's very intredasting my friends)))

You made up that number. By itself, that would indicate an implausibly low error level in the data and processing. However, there may be many more errors which are far less visible. How do you know that all those small bumps on the ocean floor are correct? Some of them may be due to data errors as well.

again, the top picture looks as if it has a hiatus which you interpret as a solid structure
it's almost as if 2 pictures were placed next to one another and left a gap

Anyone who keeps an eye on Arctic sea ice has seen lots and lots of these things. They often happen when two passes of the satellite(s) don't quite line up or don't collect all the data for that area imaged on that day.

It's nothing.

So, RomanK, what is it you think the 'object' is? Why do you doubt the explanation that has been given? Have you explored every portion of the ocean floor at the necessary resolution? Why do you think what is very clearly a 2D data drop-out is a a 3D object?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RomanK

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000001 % of the Ocean has that error in the image of the huge Tower? That's very intredasting my friends)))

You made up that number. By itself, that would indicate an implausibly low error level in the data and processing. However, there may be many more errors which are far less visible. How do you know that all those small bumps on the ocean floor are correct? Some of them may be due to data errors as well.

If you call that "tower" a small bump (3000+ meter tall?) then I have seen one of that kind so far, nor on the seal level, nor above the sea level. The rest of the ocean doesn't differ from say Tibet area in China, Huge mountains and hills here and there.

Originally Posted by RomanK

If you call that "tower" a small bump (3000+ meter tall?)

I don't call it a bump. However, that "tower" is not real. Why do you insist that it is? Don't you think the surveyors would have announced finding a huge spike like that in the sea? Don't you think it would have been in the news by now?

The rest of the ocean doesn't differ from say Tibet area in China, Huge mountains and hills here and there.

The point is, how do you know those "huge mountains and hills" are an accurate representation of the ocean floor? Some of those mountain and hills could just be less obvious errors.

Also I woud like to note that the screenshots appear somewhat blurred. In my screen it is all sharp and distinct

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by RomanK

If you call that "tower" a small bump (3000+ meter tall?)

I don't call it a bump. However, that "tower" is not real. Why do you insist that it is? Don't you think the surveyors would have announced finding a huge spike like that in the sea? Don't you think it would have been in the news by now?

The rest of the ocean doesn't differ from say Tibet area in China, Huge mountains and hills here and there.

The point is, how do you know those "huge mountains and hills" are an accurate representation of the ocean floor? Some of those mountain and hills could just be less obvious errors.

I don't insist on anything. You said you have no idea of what the Google Earth is. Try use it for couple of days!!! Learn the navigation. You will have to tune in some parameters so everything would be looking real!!! Visit Tibet or Nepal? The mountains looking real??? Once you understand this you try to explore the ocean.
The chances of such a bump like that tower are zero!!!

Originally Posted by RomanK

I don't insist on anything.

You keep insisting that this "tower" is real. Why?

You said you have no idea of what the Google Earth is.

No I didn't. I know what Google Earth is.

Try use it for couple of days!!!

Why???

And also there are still mountains that no man have climbed, in Butan for example. Though you can put a man on the top of it in Google Earth or put a man near it or next mountain to it.

ok I leave, I don't want to be looking like I am insisting that this is real. The conclusion that it's not real, I will have to deal with it.

A groundbreaking discovery has been made by an American archaeologist who spotted what looks like two new pyramid sites in Egypt, with one site viewed on satellite being three times the size of Great Pyramid at Giza.
Angela Micol is based in North Carolina and has spent ten years scrutinizing Google Earth, hunting for ancient sites from space.

She has come across two areas containing unusual shaped mounds along the Nile basin. One of them reportedly features a triangular plateau possibly the largest ever revealed.

The researcher is now planning to go visit the sites to make sure they really are what they seem to be.

It’s not the first time Google Earth has helped archaeologists make discoveries. Last year, an American Egyptologist managed to identify seventeen lost pyramids with the help of the detailed mapping.

But no body of them has found a huge tower of the lost civilasation in the ocean hahahahahaha

Originally Posted by RomanK

But no body of them has found a huge tower of the lost civilasation in the ocean hahahahahaha

I don't agree with John Galt.
I think you are a stupid troll.

I must have chosen just wrong forum and it appears the forum is not friendly.
I should have gone in here 1'st place
Satellite Archaeology Foundation, Inc. Nice stay.

RomanK, I am sorry you feel that way. This is a science forum. The majority of regular members have a confidence in the scientific method and often knowledge of a particular branch of science.

I agree that some members have been hostile. (Guys you really have to stop scaring off the new members.) However, consider this point of view: you seem to think yuo may have found something significant. Knowledgeable people are telling you that is not the case. You seem unwilling to believe this. It is not clear if you realise this is just some aspect of data processing or collection and you want to make a joke about it, or if you genuinely think this could be a structure. If it is the former case - you wish to make a joke - then you have extended the joke too far. If you seriously think this could actually be a structure then you are being rather foolish. Some members find it difficult to remain polite with other members who make poor quality jokes, or who hold foolish beliefs.

Again, it would be nice if you stayed around, but if you do I recommend you make more sensible posts.

I would like to mention even if all ocean layers is on, the skyscraper sight is remained unnoticed.

How is this not in the trash?

Well it looked like a sorta seriousish discussion to start with.

But reviving it 3 months later with no change in the lack of comprehension of what we're really looking at makes a difference. I won't put it in trash because the lessons about how to view images from satellites is generally useful.

Personal Theories is the choice.