UFO Found on Ocean Floor

Snowc

Just reading after reading this.They say they will not try to recover which seems king of fishy to me.What do ye think?

http://www.space.com/12475-ufo-ocean-floor.html

An ocean exploration team led by Swedish researcher Peter Lindberg has found what some are suggesting is a crashed flying saucer. Lindberg's team, which has had success in the past recovering sunken ships and cargo, was using sonar to look for the century-old wreck of a ship that went down carrying several cases of a super-rare champagne. Instead, the team discovered what it claims is a mysterious round object that might (or might not) be extraterrestrial.


Lindberg explained to local media that his crew discovered, on the 300-foot-deep ocean floor between Finland and Sweden, "a large circle, about 60 feet in diameter. You see a lot of weird stuff in this job, but during my 18 years as a professional I have never seen anything like this. The shape is completely round."

scholar007

Snowc wrote: »

Just reading after reading this.They say they will not try to recover which seems king of fishy to me.What do ye think?

It's fishy alright - Maybe Scotty got a bit too close to the water after a load of scotch - Were there any dilithium crystals found?

heres a video piece from the International Business times about this story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25uQAUaq8k&feature=player_embedded#!

jargon buster

I really hope they dont try and bring it to the surface, it might be the plug to stop the ocean going down the drainpipe.

Sparticle

"I don't know what it is therefore it is an extraterrestrial space craft" seems like an all to common fallacy these days. :rolleyes: Even UFO is going a bit far since the term does mean UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT after all.

1/ I don't have any experience with sonar image interpretation.
2/ Looks a bit like pac-man.
3/ It must be a hibernating pac-man from outer space.

Why won't the conspiracy media print my theory even though it's the same reasoning?

Kenny Logins

It's perfectly round, it must have come from another planet.

osnola ibax

Sparticle wrote: »

"I don't know what it is therefore it is an extraterrestrial space craft" seems like an all to common fallacy these days. :rolleyes: Even UFO is going a bit far since the term does mean UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT after all.

1/ I don't have any experience with sonar image interpretation.
2/ Looks a bit like pac-man.
3/ It must be a hibernating pac-man from outer space.

Why won't the conspiracy media print my theory even though it's the same reasoning?

Argument from ignorance I think they call that

youngmagee

Kenny Logins wrote: »

It's perfectly round, it must have come from another planet.

Not true. Although improbable is it possible for perfect shapes the be created naturally. It is just a probable as an extraterritorial race that is advance enough for space flight, lucky enough to find us (the universe is big), but still stupid enough to crash here. Also there is a long history of stuff being dumped into the ocean. it could easily be man-made.

I'm not saying the is not of extraterritorial origin but you can't jump to conclusions. The best we can say is that its interesting enough to be investigated further

scholar007

youngmagee wrote: »

Not true. Although improbable is it possible for perfect shapes the be created naturally. It is just a probable as an extraterritorial race that is advance enough for space flight, lucky enough to find us (the universe is big), but still stupid enough to crash here. Also there is a long history of stuff being dumped into the ocean. it could easily be man-made.

I'm not saying the is not of extraterritorial origin but you can't jump to conclusions. The best we can say is that its interesting enough to be investigated further

It's life Jim, but not as we know it.

Monty Burnz

Jake1 wrote: »

heres a video piece from the International Business times about this story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25uQAUaq8k&feature=player_embedded#!

Doesn't look very round in the picture. The 'track' behind it could be caused by the effect of water flowing over the object.

Interesting though.

Kenny Logins

youngmagee wrote: »

Not true. Although improbable is it possible for perfect shapes the be created naturally. It is just a probable as an extraterritorial race that is advance enough for space flight, lucky enough to find us (the universe is big), but still stupid enough to crash here. Also there is a long history of stuff being dumped into the ocean. it could easily be man-made.

I'm not saying the is not of extraterritorial origin but you can't jump to conclusions. The best we can say is that its interesting enough to be investigated further

Sarcasm sensor not working?

muppetkiller

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/ru_novgorod.html


Looks like a match to me...

Emme

If it's on the ocean floor then it's not a UFO. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. An object that's on the ocean floor isn't flying...:rolleyes:

Kenny Logins

Emme wrote: »

If it's on the ocean floor then it's not a UFO. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. An object that's on the ocean floor isn't flying...:rolleyes:

Q: What do you call a fly with no wings?




A: A fly.

nyarlothothep

youngmagee wrote: »

Not true. Although improbable is it possible for perfect shapes the be created naturally. It is just a probable as an extraterritorial race that is advance enough for space flight, lucky enough to find us (the universe is big), but still stupid enough to crash here. Also there is a long history of stuff being dumped into the ocean. it could easily be man-made.

I'm not saying the is not of extraterritorial origin but you can't jump to conclusions. The best we can say is that its interesting enough to be investigated further

That would infer that it is partially lodged in another dimension (the same one perhaps that we use to imagine perfect shapes in abstraction) in order to achieve a perfect shape. It wouldn't fully be in our universe, which is why it would be possible for it to traverse intergalactic distances.

bazza1

Dont be ridiculous! Its not a UFO!
60Ft diameter.

Its a hub cap from a UFO!:D

Monty Burnz

nyarlothothep wrote: »

That would infer that it is partially lodged in another dimension (the same one perhaps that we use to imagine perfect shapes in abstraction) in order to achieve a perfect shape. It wouldn't fully be in our universe, which is why it would be possible for it to traverse intergalactic distances.

Is this another one of your tests to see what reaction you get?

The thing isn't even round in the picture, never mind 'perfectly round'. I'm pretty confident we could make things more or less perfectly round anyway - and I doubt that there exists a scanning technology that could show up a difference between how close we could get to perfect and 'true perfect' through 100 metres of seawater...

youtube!

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Q: What do you call a fly with no wings?




A: A fly.

No no no !

what do you call a fly without wings?

A walk! thought evryone knew that one!!

Columbia

The crashed UFO hypothesis makes no sense. Water resists fast-moving objects in a very effective way. Shoot a small bullet into a swimming pool and it won't go far, shoot a larger bullet and it'll stop even sooner. An object could not smash through 300 feet of water and leave a little dredge mark at the bottom. Firstly, it either hits with too little power and eventually sinks to the bottom (leaving no mark), or it hits with immense power and leaves a significant crater or scar (and, "alien hyper-technology" notwithstanding, would be totally obliterated in the process). Secondly, that dredge mark extends on for about 150-200 feet. If the "object" had hit the water at speed at that angle it would have skimmed like a stone until its speed fell significantly.

I'm not going to venture an explanation, but the Baltic Sea is glaciated, has been an important trade route for 1,000 years, and was occupied by naval forces for most of WW2. Somewhere in the midst of all that it's perfectly possible for a man-made or naturally occurring circular object to be deposited at the bottom.

the_syco

Sparticle wrote: »

"I don't know what it is therefore it is an extraterrestrial space craft" seems like an all to common fallacy these days. :rolleyes: Even UFO is going a bit far since the term does mean UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT after all.

I think the problem is that as it's a UNIDENTIFIED SUNK OBJECT (USO), no-one cares about it :pac:

Jonny7

the_syco wrote: »

I think the problem is that as it's a UNIDENTIFIED SUNK OBJECT (USO), no-one cares about it :pac:

I do.. do they have plans to try and pull it up?

Kenny Logins

youtube! wrote: »

No no no !

what do you call a fly without wings?

A walk! thought evryone knew that one!!

Applying your logic this thread is all about a U.O.

nyarlothothep

Columbia wrote: »

The crashed UFO hypothesis makes no sense. Water resists fast-moving objects in a very effective way. Shoot a small bullet into a swimming pool and it won't go far, shoot a larger bullet and it'll stop even sooner. An object could not smash through 300 feet of water and leave a little dredge mark at the bottom. Firstly, it either hits with too little power and eventually sinks to the bottom (leaving no mark), or it hits with immense power and leaves a significant crater or scar (and, "alien hyper-technology" notwithstanding, would be totally obliterated in the process). Secondly, that dredge mark extends on for about 150-200 feet. If the "object" had hit the water at speed at that angle it would have skimmed like a stone until its speed fell significantly.

I'm not going to venture an explanation, but the Baltic Sea is glaciated, has been an important trade route for 1,000 years, and was occupied by naval forces for most of WW2. Somewhere in the midst of all that it's perfectly possible for a man-made or naturally occurring circular object to be deposited at the bottom.

The problem with your argument is that the craft was most likely between levels of reality when it crashed, so normal physics wouldn't apply and it wouldn't have been obliterated either, like the way in a game when sometimes you drop out of the level and walk through walls until you reach infinite world space.

hooradiation

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I'm pretty confident we could make things more or less perfectly round anyway

for example, the gyroscopes we built for this experiment.

These ping pong-sized balls of fused quartz and silicon are 1.5 inches across and never vary from a perfect sphere by more than 40 atomic layers

ed2hands

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with your argument is that the craft was most likely between levels of reality when it crashed, so normal physics wouldn't apply and it wouldn't have been obliterated either, like the way in a game when sometimes you drop out of the level and walk through walls until you reach infinite world space.

Sparticle

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with your argument is that the craft was most likely between levels of reality when it crashed, so normal physics wouldn't apply and it wouldn't have been obliterated either, like the way in a game when sometimes you drop out of the level and walk through walls until you reach infinite world space.

Most likely between levels of reality?? Occams razor be damned! That has to be the best physics dodge ever.

When you have to go to those sort of exorbitant lengths to make a particular scenario possible it probably didn't happen.

clever_name

Anyone else thinking of this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_(novel)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120184/

clever_name

nyarlothothep wrote: »

The problem with your argument is that the craft was most likely between levels of reality when it crashed, so normal physics wouldn't apply and it wouldn't have been obliterated either, like the way in a game when sometimes you drop out of the level and walk through walls until you reach infinite world space.

Just curious, how many levels of reality are there?

Also what branch of physics is it that you are referring to, I'm not an expert but I am interested in this stuff so would like to know the physics behind a real world "noclip mode".

Thanks

Sparticle

clever_name wrote: »

Just curious, how many levels of reality are there?

Also what branch of physics is it that you are referring to, I'm not an expert but I am interested in this stuff so would like to know the physics behind a real world "noclip mode".

Thanks

It's easy really.

You just press `` and type /noclip into the reality console. I've saved loads of travel time doing this.

the_syco

Sparticle wrote: »

You just press `` and type /noclip into the reality console. I've saved loads of travel time doing this.

Muthaf**ker. Here was me typing idspispopd, to smash pumpkins into small piles of putrid debris!

Sonics2k

the_syco wrote: »

Muthaf**ker. Here was me typing idspispopd, to smash pumpkins into small piles of putrid debris!

I thought everyone knew this

Gods know it was the only way I ever got to work on time.

squod

Crashed UFO


Millennium Falcon

Dave!

Would it not be some sort of old mountain or hill? Looks like a rock structure of some sort to me (a layperson -- and just going off the 2 images above).

Either way it's not a UFO, given that it's, y'know... at the bottom of the ocean, instead of, y'know... up in the sky... flying...!!!

scholar007

Dave! wrote: »

it's not a UFO, given that it's, y'know... at the bottom of the ocean, instead of, y'know... up in the sky... flying...!!!

Its a USO - Unidentified sunken object!

baza1976

Kenny Logins wrote: »

Emme wrote: »

If it's on the ocean floor then it's not a UFO. A UFO is an unidentified flying object. An object that's on the ocean floor isn't flying...:rolleyes:

Q: What do you call a fly with no wings?




A: A fly.

I would have said an insect!!!???!!

froog

apparently they've now found a second disk about 200m away.

http://news.google.ie/news/story?gl=ie&pz=1&cf=all&ned=en_ie&hl=en&q=ufo&ncl=d6PjhXc4XzRwKrMQnWgaA3X5wgIwM

Jonny7

They really gotta get down there and have a look

Whats the depth of the water?

Tzar Chasm

I would have gone along with the Round Russian boat initially but the second one seems a bit big for that, there were reports of the Nazis developing some kind of saucer technology towards the end of the war, although these have been dismissed as Urban Legends for decades this might lend more credence to the theories

seamus

Jonny7 wrote: »

They really gotta get down there and have a look

Whats the depth of the water?

Average depth of the Baltic is 55m, though they don't say what depth these things are at.

55m isn't that deep from an exploration point of view, but it's deep when you're talking about salvage and excavation. They could use some kind of ground-penetrating radar on the seabed to give an an indication of the composition of the things. Most likely just interesting formations of rock, but worth a look now that there are two of them.

nyarlothothep

Jonny7 wrote: »

They really gotta get down there and have a look

Whats the depth of the water?

They'll have to watch out not to bring back an alien virus with them or something like the thing. This would tie in with the end of the world predictions for 2012.

Solair

It's more likely to be a bit of a ship or submarine or other sea-junk or some kind of a military device or some old Soviet nuclear waste receptacle dumped at sea.

I'd approach anything like that with caution. It's very likely to be manmade and it could be toxic or dangerous.

Tzar Chasm

Ten Meters is feasible for a Nuclear/Toxic waste dump but apparently the second one is Much bigger, like 60 or 70 meters

stuar

It looks like a nice rock formation to me and the tracks could be a result of flow and current dragging seabed debri and the rock is an obstacle in the way and everything is dragged around it and gives an appearance of tracks.

Something like one of these maybe?, but who knows?, just trying to find something in our dimension and understanding.

Owen

It's clearly the Hispaniola from 1987's Treasure Island in Space.

Lone Stone

It looks like the plateau of a mountain, but i doubt those guys would who do this treasure hunting **** would get this excited over a mountain plateau ?

stuar

Lone Stone wrote: »

It looks like the plateau of a mountain, but i doubt those guys would who do this treasure hunting **** would get this excited over a mountain plateau ?

I think they're on a money spinning scam, the "object" is down 275ft, they need a submarine.

A group of treasure hunters based in Stockholm, using sonar, has found a strange disc-shaped object on the floor of the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Finland. From above, it looks a bit like the Millennium Falcon of "Star Wars" fame. It's large -- 197 feet in diameter -- and it's in about 275 feet of water. Leading to (or from) it is a churned-up track on the sea floor of about 1,600 feet.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/shipwreck-baltic-sea-ufo-millennium-falcon-disc-shaped/story?id=15471558

They should hire this man who could get down to it and inspect it and return to the surface and explain exactly what it is, with one single breath!

New Zealand man sets new world freedive record
A New Zealand man has set a new freedive world record, reaching a depth of 380 feet without fins on one lungful of air.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/newzealand/7633391/New-Zealand-man-sets-new-world-freedive-record.html

So if a free diver can go down 380ft with one breath, I'm sure a treasure hunting crew could get a diving helmet or bell and get down there fairly handy.

This free diver wasn't so lucky, she died at 300ft, on the way back up.

Champion free diver Audrey Mestre took a single breath, then dove 561 feet to try to try to break a world record. But the 28-year-old French woman did not make it back up alive.
Mestre was attached to a 200-pound weight mounted on a steel cable to help her get to the proper depth. She was trying to break the "no limits" dive world record of 531.5 feet set by her husband, Francisco "Pipin" Ferreras in January 2000. Together, they were the most famous free-diving couple in the world.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=125625&page=1

LordSutch

stuar wrote: »

It looks like a nice rock formation to me and the tracks could be a result of flow and current dragging seabed debri and the rock is an obstacle in the way and everything is dragged around it and gives an appearance of tracks.

Something like one of these maybe?, but who knows?, just trying to find something in our dimension and understanding.

The above has to be the most realistic theory so far, or possibly a gas vent spewing out from a rocky outcrop on the ocean floor?
Either way we should find out later this month, or sometime in June. Nice and all as the spaceship theories are, I doubt if they are realistic!

Although I'd love to be proven wrong.

Torakx

Missed alot of posts.
But maybe its one of hitlers aircrafts crashed.

Ninjamonkey

Torakx wrote: »

Missed alot of posts.
But maybe its one of hitlers aircrafts crashed.

Although I am open to the "possibility" of Extraterrestrials, I would always look to the most logical explanation, and unfortunately, I am afraid I have to say this looks like nothing more than a natural phenomenon.

Torakx

Yep, i am more inclined that way too.
But in this case speculation is alot more fun

Id give it a 5% chance its a bell shaped saucer from the 1930-40's

LordSutch

But the one thing that puzzles me about this story is that we can all see that it (may) indeed be a naturally occuring rock formation or geyzer on the sea bed, and yet, the so called "experts" headed by Peter Lindberg claim that they have never before seen anything quite like this, and that they are totally mystified!!!

So maybe there is something in it after all?