See other History Articles
Title: Is the lost city of Atlantis on Google Maps? (Telegraph)
Source:
Seattle Post-Intelligencer/London Torygraph
URL Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblo ... ves/238865.asp?from=blog_last3
Published: Feb 10, 2011
Author: Nick Eaton
Post Date: 2011-02-10 21:53:50 by Original_Intent
Keywords: Archaeology, Atlantis, Ancient, Civilization
Views: 1017
Comments: 69
It's rectangular. It certainly looks man-made. It's off the coast of North Africa. It's deep underwater. And it's on Google Maps. Could it be the ancient lost city of Atlantis? That's what Bernie Bamford, a British aeronautical engineer, wondered after he spotted an unusual pattern of rectangles on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, The Telegraph newspaper reports. About the size of Connecticut, the pattern looks an awful lot like an aerial grid map of a city. Check the site out on Google Maps. Here's an excerpt from The Telegraph report: According to his account, the city sank beneath the ocean after its residents made a failed effort to conquer Athens around 9000 B.C. Dr Charles Orser, curator of historical archaeology at New York State University told The Sun that the find was fascinating and warranted further inspection. You can read more about the intriguing find at The Telegraph's website. Check out the Atlantis Wikipedia page for more info on the mythical city. Poster Comment: Judging just by the Troll Index and the number of Troll comments on the posting (which is a contrary indicator) there may just be some there, there.
Atlantis experts said that the unexplained grid is located at one of the possible sites of the legendary island, which was described by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 38.
#7. To: Original_Intent, more crap from duff man, all (#0)
This is an old story. bits.blogs.nytimes.com/20...tery-mystery-of-atlantis/ ...According to Google, it’s time to shelve those tinfoil hats. In an interview, Steve Miller, product manager for Ocean in Google Earth, firmly debunked rumors that the crisscross markings were anything other than artificial data remnants left by sonar-equipped boats collecting data from the ocean floor. While sound waves are considered to be more effective than satellites for mapping strips of the ocean floor, they’re often more expensive and time-consuming to use. “The boats have to go slowly. Otherwise, they make a lot of noise and can wash out the readings,” said Mr. Miller. As a result, boats are used less frequently, leaving fewer gridlike sonar patterns visible on Google Earth’s map of the ocean. ...
Bullshit. One can look at the grid lines and contrast them with the surrounding ocean bottom. The thing that stands out when one actually looks at the evidence rather that regurgitating o'fishul attempts to explain unusual observations away is that the features recorded are not superficial lines but are sunk into the topography of the site. Further while lines could form from Sonar Mapping, an area in which I am trained and experienced, it does not form topographical features and the irregularities of the bottom are reported with reasonable accuracy depending upon the operating frequency of the system. The higher the frequency the more detailed the map. The problem of course with high frequency mapping is that you have to use a towed transducer as the higher the frequency the shorter the range. (Which is why anti-submarine sonars operate at lower frequencies to extend the range, and then rely on digital processing to clarify the signal.) Typical operating frequencies for towed sidescan mapping sonars is around 200 KHZ - which is a compromise between range and accuracy. It's an engineering trade off. Once again you demonstrate your abysmal ignorance and propensity for regurgitating o'fishul lyins' - Troll.
If you cant convince people with the truth, you again try to baffle them with bullshit, by making a big deal about various types of sonar and their freqs. That "city" is about 100x80 miles. 8,000 sq miles, give or take. You are intentionally ignoring the scale of this. I can see why you would ignore that, since acknowledging it would shoot down your idiotic ideas about this being atlantis or whatever the fuck you think it is. So, I'm right, and you're wrong. Again. The article I posted is the legitimate answer. .
#39. To: PSUSA, BSUSA, Bill D Berger, Former Lurker, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, irishthatcherite, gengis ghandi, christine, Lady X, all (#38)
No, I am not understating the scale YOU are making an ASSUMPTION unwarranted by the data. You assume, because of all of the indoctrination of history and archaeology much of which was set in stone in the 19th century, that all ancient civilizations were small and primitive. That is AN ASSUMPTION which is contradicted by readily available evidence: The Pyramids at Giza Baalbek in Lebanon Easter Island Moenjho Daro and Harrapa Tiahunaco Ollanyaytambo Nazca Prehistoric India - a ruin has been located and roughly mapped off of the Northeast Indian coast which is the size of Manhattan. Malta And that is just scratching the surface. I could go on listing other sites of greater and lesser extent for at least a good hour. The reality is that human civilization goes much further back into antiquity that we have heretofore been led to misbelieve. The scale and quantity of massive megalithic stone ruins are testimony to a great degree of civilization in the time before what we now call recorded history. Only small minds are intimidated by the scale. I would simply point at the scale and suggest that it is suggestive of a very large area that has seen the hand of intelligence, intent, and a purpose which we are as yet unaware of. However, I would expect evidence to be of no consequence to you as you have your script and you'll stick to it. After all that's what you are paid to do. And no you did not post an explanation you posted an attempt to explain the data away in the context of a preconceived world view and O'fishul story. Nothing more. It is at very best an unproved hypothesis which is not supported by the observed data. In other words it is an attempt to explain away not explain. Later Troll.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestPoster Comment: Judging just by the Troll Index and the number of Troll comments on the posting (which is a contrary indicator) there may just be some there, there.
#37. To: PSUSA, wudidiz, GreyLmist, irishthatcherite, abraxas, FormerLurker, all (#7)
While sound waves are considered to be more effective than satellites for mapping strips of the ocean floor, they’re often more expensive and time-consuming to use. “The boats have to go slowly. Otherwise, they make a lot of noise and can wash out the readings,” said Mr. Miller. As a result, boats are used less frequently, leaving fewer gridlike sonar patterns visible on Google Earth’s map of the ocean. ...
#38. To: Original_Intent (#37)
Once again you demonstrate your abysmal ignorance and propensity for regurgitating o'fishul lyins' - Troll.
Replies to Comment # 38.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 38.