Mystery of the Eltanin Antenna

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
Was doing a search for another topic and just happened to stumble across this. It was completely new to me, and very fascinating, especially considering the dimensions, placement, etc.

Article can be found here

"Between 1962 and 1979 the NSF Polar Research Vessel Eltanin surveyed Antarctic waters, studying the ocean and ocean bottom. In 1964, the ship photographed an unusual object at a depth of 13,500 feet. At the time, there was no submarine that could have carried a piece of technology to this depth.
The object appears to be a pole rising from the ocean floor with twelve spokes radiating from it, each ending in a sphere. The spokes are at fifteen degree angles to each other. It is located approximately 1,000 miles south of Cape Horn, beneath some of the most inhospitable seas in the world.

Marine biologists have speculated that it might be some sort of an organism, largely because it is otherwise so difficult to explain. However, there is no known form of marine life that looks remotely like this object.

There exists the possibility that it is an antenna or other scientific instrument that was lost by an early research vessel, but once again, this would appear to be a very forced explanation. It seems unlikely that an object could drop through three miles of ocean, and anchor itself on the bottom.

In addition, the position of the antenna is so exact, and so strangely significant, that it would seem almost certain that it was intentionally put there. Who did it, with what technology and why remains unknown. However, it's clear that there could be an enormous secret connected with the Eltanin antenna, and one that might not be entirely unknown to certain members of the scientific community, as will be seen.

Researcher Bruce Cathie, a New Zealander who, among other things, had a famous series of UFO sightings, has developed a theory about the antenna based on its position on the planet. Cathie's theories suggest that the antenna may be part of an ancient planetary grid that is of fundamental importance to an understanding of our planet and the great 25,000 year cycle known as the precession of the equinox.

Could it be possible that the Eltanin Antenna is a piece of ancient technology, or even technology that comes from another world? Cathie certainly thinks so. Other researchers are now suggesting that modern science might be well aware of the purpose of the object, and might be actively monitoring it or using it in some way.

Mr. Cathie considers 144, the harmonic recriprocal of the speed of light, to be an important measure of the earth's grid because it divides into the planet's 21,600 minutes of arc exactly 150 times. An individual interested in Cathie's ideas began measuring outward in steps from the antenna, and to his surprise found that the Prospect Point Antarctic Base is precisely eight of these measures away. Add another unit of 144 and you find two more antarctic bases, Hemus and St. Kilmet.

Remarkably, a whole array of bases and earthquake stations surround the Eltanin Antenna. What this may mean is unknown, but it is certainly suggestive that the Eltanin antenna is no strange marine creature, but rather an object of great importance, that somebody understands very well."
 

NilesCalder

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 20, 2001
Messages
1,817
Likes
12
Points
67
#2
Fascinating!

I've seen something like this before but for the life of me I can't remember where...

Niles "...for the life of me..." Calder
 

whoisquilty

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
78
Likes
0
Points
37
#3
My big question is...hasn't anyone gone looking for this?! To me, this is a very fascinating thing. If they can send remote vehicles 2 miles down to the Titanic, they can certainly add a mile to verify what this is. If it's the possibility of having something that may be extraterrestrial in our posession..why not do it?! Or at least go down and have a look!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#4
Unfortunately its a little more complex than just deciding on diving down that extra mile. Still, the fact that this hasn't already been explored and studied does leave me curious as to why. Cleary you have an object that defies common understanding. It would seem to me that the scientific community would be more intent on resolving such a mystery. If it is a static object, and its position is already known, you simply have to go back out that location again, unlike cryptids or aliens who are constantly hiding and thumbing their collective noses at everyone.
 

mejane

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,374
Likes
35
Points
69
#6
Mr. Cathie considers 144, the harmonic recriprocal of the speed of light, to be an important measure of the earth's grid because it divides into the planet's 21,600 minutes of arc exactly 150 times. An individual interested in Cathie's ideas began measuring outward in steps from the antenna, and to his surprise found that the Prospect Point Antarctic Base is precisely eight of these measures away. Add another unit of 144 and you find two more antarctic bases, Hemus and St. Kilmet.
Oddly enough 144 is my IQ, at least according to one of those online tests (others differ - mensa never replied to my letter, but I assume it just got lost in the post :p ).

What's a harmornic recriprocal? What units are being used for the speed of light - I've tried metric, assorted imperial measures(US & UK) but can't seem to get 144 as the recriprocal (harmornic or otherwise).

21,600 minutes of arc? Eh? I feel the need for enlightenment here.

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#7
Its true, this thing may be long gone by now. But if that proves to be the case, what an incredible opportunity we have missed. This thing is so obviously outside the realm of known science, and yet there it sits in the dark depths. Reminds me of another missed underwater anomaly....think I'll start a new post for that one. :)
 

augustverango

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 12, 2001
Messages
264
Likes
7
Points
49
#8
The Unexplained (Volume 7, Page 1622, Orbis 1981) asks 'could it in fact be one of the tall polyps that live in the same waters?' and prints a picture to compare.

Doesn't look a great deal similar to me though.
 

whoisquilty

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
78
Likes
0
Points
37
#9
I suppose it could be the same thing...but the Eltanin Antenna looks more geometric and manufactured than the polyp. Also...do they know how tall the antenna is?
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#10
mejane said:
What's a harmornic recriprocal? What units are being used for the speed of light - I've tried metric, assorted imperial measures(US & UK) but can't seem to get 144 as the recriprocal (harmornic or otherwise).

21,600 minutes of arc? Eh? I feel the need for enlightenment here.

Jane.
I share your bafflement. If you can be bothered to read the description of Cathie's theories (follow the link in the first post) you will find a remarkable example of numerology and pseudo-science. (Meaning that it bears little relationship to any maths or science rynner has studied!)

But I can reveal one mystery - 21,600 is the result of multiplying 360 (the degrees in a circle) by 60 (the minutes in a degree). In other words, there are 21,600 minutes of arc (ie not minutes of time) in a complete circle. Profound, eh? :D

But I agree that we ought to look for this antenna again, whatever it is.
 

mejane

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,374
Likes
35
Points
69
#11
Profound? Erm, obviously a new meaning of that word that I wasn't aware of. :)

I must admit that I haven't read all of the links yet (put off by the need on one of the first pages to explain that New Zealand is "down under", close to Australia... and there was me thinking it was a small lake in France... ) :confused:

Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't pick up this little coincidence rynner - related article

Related? Who knows? Would be nice to see new pictures of this thing though.

Jane.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#12
mejane said:
Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't pick up this little coincidence rynner - related article Jane.
Fascinating link, Jane, especially as one of the speakers at last night's astro-soc meeting had us doing a 'hands-on' exercise at estimating the brightness of variable stars!

And I must admit I didn't delve into Mr. Cathie's theory deep enough to understand his link with Precession. (It looked like lots more numerology to me. In connection with which, let me slag off Alan Alford, who has written various 'fringe' books, in one of which he makes great play with certain numerological facts connected with precession, but also reveals in the same book that the latest figure for the precession period is at variance with the 'round number' he had used earlier!)
 

brianellwood

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Nov 10, 2001
Messages
722
Likes
11
Points
49
#13
As far as i know only very low frequencies of radio waves will propagate through water - the military use these freqs. to communicate with submarines- and their antennas are enormous. there is a web site at which you can take a tour around a famous base station in N. America which covers several square miles, sadly i've lost the url. Obviously a sub cannot have an enormous antenna, maybe this is some sort of repeater station needed to boost the signals?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#14
That would possibly explain why the military would be reluctant to go back out and investigate. However, if it was part of a top secret underwater transmitting station, why release the photo in the first place?
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#15
There was another link to Bruce Cathie's website which I missed before. Haven't had time to study it yet, but at least it'll give his ideas without the possible confusion of other commentators.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#16
I've just given up on it! Cathie says

"Square of 2545.584412 = 648"

Accordingly to my calculator, it is a smidgen short of 6,480,000. Now it seems a bit careless to ignore a factor of ten thousand.

His equations also make no sense in terms of Dimensions, ie Mass, Length, Time, etc. In Physics, the dimensions used in equations have to balance as well as the figures.

So you can say 5 apples + 3 apples = 8 apples, but not
5 apples + 3 pears = 8 apples, which is the sort of thing that happens in Cathie's equations.

The man is not speaking my language.

For more on Dimensions, click here.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#17
With regard to the peculiar spin of an electron, I think this is to do with the fact that it can have a spin quantum number of plus or minus one half. I'm no expert on this, but more than you probably want to know about Quantum numbers is here:

To distinguish between the two electrons in an orbital, we need a fourth quantum number. This is called the spin quantum number (s) because electrons behave as if they were spinning in either a clockwise or counterclockwise fashion. One of the electrons in an orbital is arbitrarily assigned an s quantum number of +1/2, the other is assigned an s quantum number of -1/2. Thus, it takes three quantum numbers to define an orbital but four quantum numbers to identify one of the electrons that can occupy the orbital.
But Cathie would have given himself more street cred if he'd quoted something scientific rather than a book on the occult!
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#18
Re: 360o Short of a Full Arc?

garrick92 said:
So, Cathie has cited a rather daft "literalist" misinterpretation (Wilson's) of a well-known physics 'expression' (i.e., think-model) as though it were somehow concrete proof of the existence of a subatomic 'parallel dimension'?
I'm sure I have heard scientists describe the rotation of the electron in similar terms, but my web search didn't seem to turn up any examples. But possibly the extra dimensions bit was Wilson's gloss on it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#19
Would I be right in thinking that to obtain a photograph of the complete object at this depth it would have to be fairly small as it would be rather difficult to light up a large object.

I was also wondering if the radial arms conformed to the fibonacci series.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,246
Likes
8,944
Points
284
#20
Interesting idea, Lecky. But if so that would tend to point to a natural, organic, explanation.

There again, when I started counting petals on flowers after my OU maths course, I sent a few people emails titled "Who put the Fib in Fibbonacci?" !

In fact the object was rather small, only a couple of feet long I think, according to one of he websites mentioned above.
 

Breakfastologist

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
921
Likes
17
Points
49
#21
It sounds really like one of the things from Doris Lessing's absolutely brilliant "Shikasta", a book I can't quite put my finger on but should be on the reading lists of forteans everywhere.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#22
The Lecky Mouse said:
Would I be right in thinking that to obtain a photograph of the complete object at this depth it would have to be fairly small as it would be rather difficult to light up a large object.
Despite the fact that the image is refered to as a "photograph" in the article, I think its clear that what you are seeing is actually a sonar image rendered in 3-D. The article goes on to state that at the time there were no known submersibles capable of attaining that depth, which would exclude the possibilty of it being a traditional photographer taken from a manned or robotic sub.
 

mejane

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,374
Likes
35
Points
69
#23
rynner said:
Interesting idea, Lecky. But if so that would tend to point to a natural, organic, explanation.

There again, when I started counting petals on flowers after my OU maths course, I sent a few people emails titled "Who put the Fib in Fibbonacci?" !
rynner, I've now got the image stuck in my mind of you skipping happily through a meadow pulling petals off flowers singing "She loves me, she loves me not...". An image aided and abetted by the photo of you as a young lad that's on another thread. :p

Sorry, daft coffee-sputtering-over-the-keyboard moment over now.

I must admit that my knowledge of quantum physics is dodgy to say the least (and I still haven't managed to wade through all the original links - really hard going at times), but it just seems to me that Cathie saw something that he couldn't explain, read a few popular "science" books then put two and two together and came up with, well, 144 apparently.

With regard to his ignoring all those pesky zeros - it's not exactly uncommon in numerology to mould the facts to fit the theory. Real scientists of course never ignore all that damned data ;)

Still, give the guy his due - he's making a living from sprouting pseudo-scientific head-hurting theories. Wouldn't we all like to be able to do that?

For the record, my money is on it being a natural object photographed from an odd angle. I'd really like to be wrong though (but only if they're friendly).

Jane.
 

mejane

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,374
Likes
35
Points
69
#25
Xanatic said:
Am I the only one that isn't sort of sad the number he came up with wasn't 42? :D
Ah, but if you divide 144 by that harmonious number pi (3.0 of course), you get... (wait for the drum roll)... that magnificent, life-affirming, universe and everything else that giggles quietly in the corner number... 48.

Oh well, it was worth a try.

(joke coutesy of the shade of DNA - Douglas Noel Adams).

Jane.


(Sorry - I'll go get my dolphin)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#26
mejane said:
(Sorry - I'll go get my dolphin)
While you're at it, how about grabbing a babblefish so that us non-initiated types can decipher just what the hell it is Cathie is talking about. :)
 

furby2006

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
49
Likes
0
Points
22
#27
How to make 144 = 42.... hmmmm... hard one. how about this :

1*4 = 4
there are two 4's in the number * 1 = 2

Therefore, 144 = 42 and it must be a coded signal that points to the fact that 42 is one of the "Harmonious Convergence Numbers", but remember, 6 is even more harmonious, because 4 + 2 = 6.

Hey - that logic makes as much sense as some of the other logic quoted on this thread!
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
#28
The current explanation is that the so-called Eltanin Antenna is just a sea-plant. But I don't believe that this washes at all. The arms of the "antenna" join the center post at true right angles. Plants don't do that.

On the other hand there's absolutely nothing "alien"-looking about the "antenna." If it IS an antenna, it's clearly of terrestrial design. It could almost certainly be cobbled together from stock parts down at Radio Shack.

So my guess remains that this is a section of radio antenna dropped from a plane or dropped or jettisoned from a ship, with the apparatus then embedding itself in the sea floor.
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
123
Points
114
#30
darrg said:
I dunno, the Cladorhiza sponge theory looks quite convincing to my jaded eyes ...

http://www.larryhatch.net/ELTANIN.html
I dunno either, and you could well be correct. But the drawings I've seen of the sponges show the "appendages" as curved like the limbs a terrestrial plant, while the "antennae" are perfectly straight and join the center post at true right angles. Also, the stalks of the sponges are at least very slightly curved while the that "center post" is ram-rod straight.

But at least neither of us believes that the "antenna" was installed by the Space Brothers to spy on us. <g>
 
Top