UFO Found on Ocean Floor

Snowc · 13-09-2011 10:21PM #1

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 · 13-09-2011 10:27PM

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?

14-09-2011 08:56AM

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

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

jargon buster · 14-09-2011 09:36AM

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 · 14-09-2011 09:42AM

"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 · 14-09-2011 09:47AM

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

osnola ibax · 14-09-2011 10:13AM

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 · 14-09-2011 10:35AM

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 · 14-09-2011 10:39AM

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 · 14-09-2011 10:40AM

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 · 14-09-2011 10:40AM

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 · 14-09-2011 10:42AM

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

Looks like a match to me...

Emme · 14-09-2011 02:31PM

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 · 14-09-2011 02:39PM

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 · 14-09-2011 02:47PM

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 · 14-09-2011 02:51PM

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

Its a hub cap from a UFO!:D

Monty Burnz · 14-09-2011 02:53PM

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! · 14-09-2011 02:59PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:25PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:26PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:41PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:51PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:51PM

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 · 14-09-2011 03:53PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:02PM

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 · 14-09-2011 04:59PM

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 · 14-09-2011 05:54PM

Anyone else thinking of this?

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

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

clever_name · 14-09-2011 06:13PM

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 · 14-09-2011 06:42PM

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 · 16-09-2011 02:03AM

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 · 16-09-2011 11:22PM

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.

UFO Found on Ocean Floor

Comments