Notices
Results 1 to 56 of 56
Like Tree6Likes
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By RedPanda
  • 1 Post By John Galt
  • 2 Post By adelady

Thread: Google Earth Ocean

  1. #1 Google Earth Ocean 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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


    Last edited by RomanK; December 15th, 2013 at 04:38 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    ...


    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    RomanK found "weird pics" at a "url" that are "a joke" and "hard to believe".
    Last edited by jrmonroe; December 15th, 2013 at 10:38 PM. Reason: Removed hasty conclusion.
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    let's not be premature - i want to see where this is leading to
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Sorry, too hasty.

    What about coordinates?
    Grief is the price we pay for love. (CM Parkes) Our postillion has been struck by lightning. (Unknown) War is always the choice of the chosen who will not have to fight. (Bono) The years tell much what the days never knew. (RW Emerson) Reality is not always probable, or likely. (JL Borges)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,379
    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
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    //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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    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 ?



    Last edited by KALSTER; December 16th, 2013 at 01:05 PM.
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    I'll let you know that tower is taller and bigger than that building in Dubai.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    I'll let you know that tower is taller and bigger than that building in Dubai.
    Well, it would be ... if it existed!
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,576
    Do you understand what resolution means?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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???
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,576
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Nothing you would find anything similar and strange in the whole ocean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,576
    And what is a comparison of a building and an instrumental artifact that is a similar shape meant to show? It is an ARTIFACT.

    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK
    ok, end of discussion
    Good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    Nothing you would find anything similar and strange in the whole ocean.
    How do you know?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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))))
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,576
    It's an artifact, what is wrong with you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.
    KALSTER likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,576
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    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>
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    "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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    The tower is at least 4 times higher than scyscraper in Dubay.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    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
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000001 % of the Ocean has that error in the image of the huge Tower? That's very intredasting my friends)))
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Also I woud like to note that the screenshots appear somewhat blurred. In my screen it is all sharp and distinct
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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???
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477


    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    But no body of them has found a huge tower of the lost civilasation in the ocean hahahahahaha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    ▼▼ dn ʎɐʍ sıɥʇ ▼▼ RedPanda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by RomanK View Post
    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.
    PhDemon likes this.
    SayBigWords.com/say/3FC

    "And, behold, I come quickly;" Revelation 22:12

    "Religions are like sausages. When you know how they are made, you no longer want them."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.
    Ascended likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Mother Russia
    Posts
    477
    I would like to mention even if all ocean layers is on, the skyscraper sight is remained unnoticed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor pyoko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,095
    How is this not in the trash?

    It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.
    Lynx_Fox and pyoko like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Google Nose
    By mat5592 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 1st, 2013, 03:50 PM
  2. Google
    By Ascended in forum Computer Science
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: June 14th, 2012, 06:28 AM
  3. How far will we go with Google ?
    By Makandal in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 1st, 2011, 11:09 AM
  4. Google earth? Atlantis?
    By Lightingbird in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 10th, 2009, 03:26 PM
  5. Earth's Ocean
    By Grangy in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 11th, 2008, 12:55 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •