• 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

eburacum said:
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.

Yep!
 
Except right there at the top of the article it says:

said some of the team's cameras and the team's satellite phone would refuse to work when directly above the object, and would only work once they had sailed away

I'm all for scepticism. This whole story seems dubious and unlikely to turn into anything provably fantastical. But lets not just fabricate our own reasons to be dismissive. There's every chance that good reasons to point and laugh will be provided in good time.

Alli
 
Yes, but it still sounds a bit iffy. If it's just a technical glitch, then why do they make mention of it? It seems like they are making some effort to make it seem odd.
 
It's definitely the kind of detail you throw in there if you're trying to suggest flying saucers. True.

Alli
 
And there are still no photos of this object.
It's exasperating.
 
It's definitely the kind of item one mentions out of desperation to make the mundane appear to have been extraordinary ... :roll:

The bit about electronic / electrical disruption didn't appear in the original reports of the mid-June dive. It was a follow-on addendum, apparently originating with remarks from Stefan Hogeborn (the professional diver whose visit to the structure was the only one documented and reported to date).

He stated that on his way down to the bottom his light failed. Then the camera started acting up. At a depth of about 50m the camera shut down. He had to stop / wait to deal with it. At around this time a second light or lamp failed. I'm not sure if this second light was a separate 'flashlight' unit or some lamp associated with the camera itself.

He finally got the camera 'restarted', and once on the bottom everything (at least everything relating to the camera itself) seemed to be working for the remainder of the time spent around the object. When they returned to the surface, they found nothing on the tape.

Hogeborn was also the first one (reported as ...) mentioning the satellite phone failing to work when the boat was directly above the main object. His original statement isn't clear as to whether this happened one time versus being a recurrent effect. The bit about the satellite phone working again once the boat had moved some meters away from a point directly over the object entered the narrative later.

The bottom line is that there were multiple equipment-related glitches or failures during the period of the initial (reported) dive. However ...

It is not the case that all their lights / lamps failed (else there'd have been no still images at that depth). The camera was restarted on the way down, and it seemed to (mechanically) function just fine while they were on the bottom. Without any report on the camera's operational condition it's impossible to tell whether the blank tape was (e.g.) recording without result versus not actually recording at all. They never clarified whether the satellite phone service disruption was a one-time event or a repeatable effect.

The lack of context and detail on these matters contrasts with how specific they were about features of the object itself. To be fair, they haven't been consistently clear about the object's features either. The evidence to date represents a jumble of isolated factoids and unclear explanations for what's in the still photos, and they seem content (or constrained ...) to let the audience extrapolate as much as they choose onto it.
 
johncbdg1 said:
A very interesting image of the object, from above with 90 degrees angles. This is at the top of the object
You do mean the artist's illustration, don't you?
 
A 'high resolution' sonar image that shows us nothing at all.
How extraordinary.
 
I'm getting frustrated at the manner in which they keep changing explanations for the items they presented after the initial dive.

For example ... After the initial dive the photo of a smooth curving wall (of, apparently, stone ...) was initially presented as an illustration relating to the overall structure of the object - i.e., as if it were illustrating how the lower side of the object met the sea bed.

Now the same photo has been portrayed as illustrating 'The Meringue' - a dome-like protuberance on the top side of the overall object.

Some of the most recent reports (ostensibly reflecting comments from the Ocean X guys) have included comments to the effect that:

- the main 'object' is perched atop a separate pillar or analogous structure below
- the main 'object' is in fact a collection of separate slabs rather than a single striated mass

I don't mind things being ambiguous while we're all awaiting results from the material sample analyses, etc.

However, I do have a problem with them changing the emphases and descriptions of the story's elements as time goes on.
 
Here in Sweden their underwater discovery was tabloid gold. Both of the major tabloid papers ran this story on the front page with UFO references. Now and then, we hear more about it.

But it feels like a lot of hoo-ha was made in the beginning, they received funding, global attention, dolled up the website to make it more appealing for international journos and then realised that they hadn't discovered anything at all.

However, to keep interest going in their company and services, I think they are probably dragging this out. I believe they were genuinely excited in the beginning but now know that it's a geological formation and need to let us down gently.

That's my 2 cents.
 
You're probably right.
This will finish badly.
 
Ringo_ said:
but now know that it's a geological formation

What type of geological formation is this? I don't think they could "know" it was a geological formation unless they'd seen it before. I think they're open to whatever it might be (while wishing for something exciting), and enjoying the spotlight in the meantime.
 
Monstrosa said:

The problem is that the article heading has nothing to do with the article. In no way do they lead to the conclusion that the object is a glacial deposit. I believe they've gotten some negative feedback for this article.

We continue to wait for the 3rd expedition findings.
 
Update:

They've made another visit to the Object. Get the full update from http://www.oceanexplorer.se/ and watch the YouTube video from 1:01:30.

Short summary: He claims they had compass issues, "ghost shadows on the sonar," and then the ROV propellor broke which rendered the visit totally useless. He also reiterates that he has some really big news about this object but still isn't ready to tell us until he's had time to "look with the other scientists about it."

Thoughts?
 
Sounds like they could do with better equipment, really.
 
I just don't get it.

If you had actually discovered something ground breaking, unique and new to science then wouldn't you get a wiggle on to examine it. They found it almost 2 years ago and haven't even carried out 3 proper expeditions.

You can't even say it's funding issues as any savvy tech firm would love to get involved if it actually meant a world changing scientific event.

Fools gold anyone?
 
On his last couple of videos, he keeps stressing that he has some really big news coming up about the object but he isn't quite ready to share it yet. He always seems to bring up "the scientists" in a way which suggests that THEY have figured out what it is. Now how in the world would a "scientist" in a lab or elsewhere have any more information on the thing that him, or you or me? Anyone have a guess on what he could be talking about?
 
Human_84 said:
On his last couple of videos, he keeps stressing that he has some really big news coming up about the object but he isn't quite ready to share it yet. He always seems to bring up "the scientists" in a way which suggests that THEY have figured out what it is. Now how in the world would a "scientist" in a lab or elsewhere have any more information on the thing that him, or you or me? Anyone have a guess on what he could be talking about?
The scientists went down there in subs when he wasn't there, obviously. ;)

Realistically, this is standard behavior of people in many fortean fields who gain publicity, "giant revelations, right around the corner...."
 
yeah it looks like theyre unable to face up to the fact that its not paricularly earth-shatteringly important ... and i was so hoping it was han solo frozen in carbonite wearing the wrong shirt ...
 
Update on their site: Get your full resolution photo of the Baltic Sea object signed by the team for only $75.

;) ....


:cry:
 
As far as I can tell, they've been promoting the Baltic Sea object less and less since late last summer - when the geo-scientist to whom they gave a material sample identified it as rock commonly found in glacial deposits around the region.

It's starting to look (to me, at least ...) as if they're quietly moving on and leaving this particular find behind.
 
IHTSITYS - Alright!
 
Back
Top