• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Mysterious 60m Diameter Disc Discovered On Baltic Seabed

gordonrutter said:
A quick whoiis lookup shows that the domain http://www.oceanexplorer.se/ is registered to one.com which is a web hosting company - the sort of place an individual or group would get their webspace with and the it has been registered since the 17th of March 2011. There is no archive of the page prior to the current stuff.

Gordon
Click to expand...
and a quick glance at their images page reveals some nude diving ( male )
 
According to this news item in the _Ancylus'_ home port news:

http://norrteljetidning.se/nyheter/1.16 ... att-bunkra

... the _Ancylus_ was home in port 'yesterday' (Sunday?) to stock up on stores after 10 days at sea. They will be heading back out to sea today.

The article notes the team has been secretive on the subject of how things have gone, but indicates there should be an update this week.
 
You'd think they'd have a plan in place for finding a 'genuine crashed UFO', and a plan for finding another known object. Right now, it seems like either:

1) They've found the holy grail (unlikely), and don't know how to announce it.
2) They've found something boring, and don't know how to announce it.

Obviously they knew that they were going to be able to ID the object, whatever it was, and it seems it would be easy to prepare for both situations.
 
There are no new updates on their website.
I'm disappointed.
 
As far as I can tell, the Ocean Explorer folks have elected to prioritize Facebook over their own website as the channel for disseminating updates.

It remains unclear how far they've gotten in examining the anomaly. The news items and reported comments (from when the boat was in port this past weekend to resupply) seemed to indicate at least one investigative 'dive' had been undertaken last week. It's never been made clear whether this meant someone personally went down there or perhaps they sent an ROV.

I suspect the Ocean X guys are having to operate within constraints imposed by their media-related contracts (Titan TV and Discovery), and this might well explain the delays and obtuse remarks. I can understand that (if it's the case).

However, the combination of delay and coy secrecy seems to be eroding interest among the folks (mainly UFO / paranormal fans) who've been following this story.

We have a recent example of how much a side-scan sonar image can mislead (the apparent U-boat wreck in Lough Foyle that turned out to be a sonar imaging artifact). It might well be that something just as 'spurious' has been pursued in this case, and the outcome is not just disappointing but monumentally embarrassing to both the Ocean Explorer team and their sponsors.
 
^^ If that's the case, at least they've taken the right approach by stating flat out that it might be nothing at all. They haven't sailed into 'dangerous waters' in any way.
 
Human_84 said:
^^ If that's the case, at least they've taken the right approach by stating flat out that it might be nothing at all. They haven't sailed into 'dangerous waters' in any way.
Click to expand...

I agree. One of the two Ocean Explorer guys commented it was probably a natural feature last year. Most commentaries on the 'Baltic anomaly' tend to overlook the fact that the Ocean Explorer guys never stated on record that they believed it to be a UFO.
 
EnolaGaia said:
Human_84 said:
^^ If that's the case, at least they've taken the right approach by stating flat out that it might be nothing at all. They haven't sailed into 'dangerous waters' in any way.
Click to expand...

I agree. One of the two Ocean Explorer guys commented it was probably a natural feature last year. Most commentaries on the 'Baltic anomaly' tend to overlook the fact that the Ocean Explorer guys never stated on record that they believed it to be a UFO.
Click to expand...

Yet they have a video on their website showing an alien spacecraft crashing into the water.
 
johncbdg1 said:
mysterious object it is.

update
http://www.oceanexplorer.se/
Click to expand...

It's a circle of rocks. The profile image makes it seem more like a disk though - if you watch the video.

baltic-sea-ufo-rocks.jpg
 
Human_84 said:
johncbdg1 said:
mysterious object it is.

update
http://www.oceanexplorer.se/
Click to expand...

It's a circle of rocks. The profile image makes it seem more like a disk though - if you watch the video.

baltic-sea-ufo-rocks.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry they said,First they thought it was just stone or a rock cliff, but after further observations the object appeared more as a huge mushroom,On top of the object they also found strange stone circle formations, almost looking like small fireplaces. The stones were covered in something resembling soot.

Rocks stone?
 
Yes - there's some confusion about what's illustrated in the video (and derivative images, which are proliferating throughout the 'Net ...).

So here are some points of clarification ...

The 60-meter diameter primary object portrayed on the earlier side-scan sonar images is a composite formation of stone. The diver characterized the composition of this main body stone as being similar to concrete. A marine archaeology expert separately consulted by the newspaper has opined (based only on the images) it is probably sandstone.

The main 'disk' formation is a compactly-arranged set of large blocks. This set of blocks is pinched or curved inward at its lower extremity (i.e., it doesn't extend vertically into the substrate, but turns or rounds inward at the bottom). As a result, the diver described the blocks' shapes as being akin to 'rolls' (as in 'buns') or 'mushrooms'.

The circle of stones highlighted throughout the early part of the video are *not* the main / 60-meter-diameter formation. They are a smaller collective feature sitting atop the main 'disk'. Darkening / blackening of these smaller stones atop the main disk are the basis for the diver's allusions to a campfire site or something related to fire. Automated translations will produce English terms like 'furnace' or 'oven', but the underlying Swedish term 'eldstad' can also mean (e.g.) 'campfire pit'.
 
Anybody want to take a stab at its origins? Natural formation? A forgotten doorway to a subterranean metropolis, etc?
 
Perhaps rocks and bits of masonry used as ballast in an old ship and thrown overboard to help the ship float better?

Or it could be an underwater volcano that didn't do very much?
 
I go for a UFObject that when it hit the sea it got covered in all that stone and sand as it hit seabed, you can see the track on seabed and tons of sand and stone covered this object?
 
The location of the campfire-pit-style ring of smaller stones atop the main formation is intriguing, because it insinuates human activity. However, there's a major problem with this scenario ...

The Baltic Shield area has been uplifting (post-glaciation rebound) since the last ice age. What's now the Baltic Sea was once a massive freshwater lake that indirectly emptied into the North Sea before the current channel(s) formed. These facts translate into two problems for an archaeological interpretation:

(1) The pre-Baltic lake was broader than the current Baltic Sea, so in all likelihood the anomaly's location has been continuously submerged for a lot longer than the last ice age.

(2) The landscape is generally rising rather than sinking, so it's difficult to assume the current 300m subsurface location was ever exposed during the period of human habitation.

A lot depends on the exact location of the anomalous formation - something the Ocean Explorer / Ocean X team has been loathe to reveal.

My current favorite hypothesis is that it's a striated / tessellated sedimentary block that was deposited in its current location as a glacial erratic when the last(?) glaciation retreated. In this scenario, it dropped out of an ice sheet or iceberg, not from the sky.
 
EnolaGaia said:
The location of the campfire-pit-style ring of smaller stones atop the main formation is intriguing, because it insinuates human activity. However, there's a major problem with this scenario ...

The Baltic Shield area has been uplifting (post-glaciation rebound) since the last ice age. What's now the Baltic Sea was once a massive freshwater lake that indirectly emptied into the North Sea before the current channel(s) formed. These facts translate into two problems for an archaeological interpretation:

(1) The pre-Baltic lake was broader than the current Baltic Sea, so in all likelihood the anomaly's location has been continuously submerged for a lot longer than the last ice age.

(2) The landscape is generally rising rather than sinking, so it's difficult to assume the current 300m subsurface location was ever exposed during the period of human habitation.

A lot depends on the exact location of the anomalous formation - something the Ocean Explorer / Ocean X team has been loathe to reveal.

My current favorite hypothesis is that it's a striated / tessellated sedimentary block that was deposited in its current location as a glacial erratic when the last(?) glaciation retreated. In this scenario, it dropped out of an ice sheet or iceberg, not from the sky.
Click to expand...

Now that is some hypothesis,i give that as much chance of being right as any but to much needs to happen for your hypothesis,{the only one}.

My hypothesis,i go along with the sky blast event,that every one knows about Mysterious Explosion 1,000 Times Greater than Hiroshima {Tunguska explosion}and that object ended up in the Baltic sea
http://maps.google.co.uk/
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/fe ... shima/3589

I go for a UFObject that when it hit the sea it got covered in all that stone and sand as it hit seabed, you can see the track on seabed and tons of sand and stone covered this object?
 
johncbdg1 said:
EnolaGaia said:
...My current favorite hypothesis is that it's a striated / tessellated sedimentary block that was deposited in its current location as a glacial erratic when the last(?) glaciation retreated. In this scenario, it dropped out of an ice sheet or iceberg, not from the sky.
Click to expand...

Now that is some hypothesis,i give that as much chance of being right as any but to much needs to happen for your hypothesis,{the only one}...
Click to expand...

Doesn't look ridiculously unreasonable to me. 'To(o) much needs to happen' suggests that you think it's an overly complex hypothesis - more so than your own - which quite frankly, given the implications of your alternative, I don't really see myself.

Anyway, it's all academic because I know exactly what it is: they've only gone and found the plughole, haven't they? Pray to god they don't actiually try to remove it: all that hair. Bleurchh!
 
Spookdaddy said:
johncbdg1 said:
EnolaGaia said:
...My current favorite hypothesis is that it's a striated / tessellated sedimentary block that was deposited in its current location as a glacial erratic when the last(?) glaciation retreated. In this scenario, it dropped out of an ice sheet or iceberg, not from the sky.
Click to expand...

Now that is some hypothesis,i give that as much chance of being right as any but to much needs to happen for your hypothesis,{the only one}...
Click to expand...

Doesn't look ridiculously unreasonable to me. 'To(o) much needs to happen' suggests that you think it's an overly complex hypothesis - more so than your own - which quite frankly, given the implications of your alternative, I don't really see myself.




Anyway, it's all academic because I know exactly what it is: they've only gone and found the plughole, haven't they? Pray to god they don't actiually try to remove it: all that hair. Bleurchh!
Click to expand...

None are ridiculously unreasonable,but the plughole sounds good,i like that and hope its not.LOL
 
Once they announce the results from analyzing the rock samples the diver said he took a number of theories should move into or out of play.

If the main disk material turns out to be sedimentary rock, that will pretty much kill off all theories based on something falling out of the sky.

It also kills the notion of it being a volcanic plug (or at least the idea it's the directly-accessible 'face' of any sort of igneous extrusion).

If it's non-sedimentary rock (but still 'rock'), the next question is whether it's possibly meteoric in origin.

If it's neither sedimentary nor meteoric, we're back to a terrestrial explanation - e.g., from glacial outfall or upllift from a substratum.

Some areas of the Baltic seafloor exhibit notable uplift features (e.g., the area around Åland). The main problem with an uplift scenario is that the striated / tessellated weathering features will be difficult to explain in a relatively static marine environment. The frequently mentioned claim that there are no currents in the Baltic is false. There are currents - they're just not as pronounced or swift as those found in the open sea.

Right now my main question is whether they're going to visit and investigate the so-called 'Anomaly #2'.
 
More on the object....

Hefty trajectory: The Swedish diving team noted a 985-foot flattened out 'runway' leading up to the object, implying that it skidded along the path before stopping but no true answers are clear

Odd shape: The object which has a 60-meter diameter is said to be raised about 10-13 feet off the seabed and the divers compared it to the shape of a mushroom

More questions: The divers found soot-covered rocks that encircled an egg-shaped hole that went into the object at its center, and have no idea what any of it means
Click to expand...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... unway.html
 
EnolaGaia said:
The location of the campfire-pit-style ring of smaller stones atop the main formation is intriguing, because it insinuates human activity. However, there's a major problem with this scenario ...

The Baltic Shield area has been uplifting (post-glaciation rebound) since the last ice age. What's now the Baltic Sea was once a massive freshwater lake that indirectly emptied into the North Sea before the current channel(s) formed. These facts translate into two problems for an archaeological interpretation:

(1) The pre-Baltic lake was broader than the current Baltic Sea, so in all likelihood the anomaly's location has been continuously submerged for a lot longer than the last ice age.

(2) The landscape is generally rising rather than sinking, so it's difficult to assume the current 300m subsurface location was ever exposed during the period of human habitation.
Click to expand...

Or....The object once floated.
 
More than a little bit late on this one, but I have to ask.

When a report comes in of a large circular object under the sea, am I the only who thought (and I'm ashamed to admit it) of the following? :

"Tower from Stingray, approaching Ocean Door."

Explanation here for those who actually went outside on a Saturday morning


Gerry Anderson has a lot to answer for :roll:
 
If electronic equipment shorts out within 200m, then presumably all the images we have of the object so far were taken from more than 200m away? Even the ones that just look like rocks?

Sounds fishy to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top