Monday, February 23, 2009

Atlantis.

Another claim to Atlantis has surfaced (bad pun, I know). This time there's a map. I tried to embed it here but it just messed everything up.

Here's the link and if that doesn't work, try entering the coordinates 31 15'15.53N 24 15'30.53W into Google Earth's search box (copy and paste works). You might have to zoom out a bit until an image appears.

It does look like a city plan on the bottom of the sea. However, if you note the scale bar, each of those 'city blocks' is ten miles wide.

That's some city, ten miles between road junctions.

Whatever it is, it doesn't look like a natural formation. It's too big to be a city plan. It's certainly something odd.

I hope there are plans to look into it, but I'm not going down there. I have enough problems coping with rain.


------

Edited to add:

Here's a screenshot showing where in the world the feature is found. Off the coast of North Africa, in some seriously deep water:




Here's the biggest magnification Google has:



I hope those images will enlarge if you click on them. That doesn't always work.

The feature is far too big to be a city street layout. It's also in very, very deep water. If a city sunk that far under the waves it should have been fragmented, not lowered down as if by a forklift truck. So I don't believe it's Atlantis.

It's very interesting all the same. Maybe it's a bizarre natural formation of some kind - even so that would be something I'd like to hear about. It might even turn out to be a board game played by giant squid!

But not a city. The scale is wrong.

7 comments:

Southern Writer said...

#%$&&@#*&!!!!! I couldn't get those coordinates to work. Atlantis was in Nashville??? Somehow, I don't think so. Please help me out here. I'd love to see whatever it is you're seeing.

DeadMouse said...

Didn't Google come out and say that the "grid lines" were just a part of the process they are mapping with and that they are not physically there?

Romulus Crowe said...

I've updated the post with screenshots - which I should have done in the first place!

SW - the link is to a UK Google site, maybe it uses a different kind of co-ordinate system, or one realtive to the server location? I don't know how they do it.

DeadMouse - whatever it is, it's nobody's grid system. Too messy. There are longer straight lines in the area that might be artefacts caused by a mapping system or 'faults' in matching individual pictures, but it wouldn't explain this structure.

Southern Writer said...

Whoa. That's truly fascinating. I could probably look at that for hours wondering what left scars like that on the earth. What do you think -- it's roughly a hundred miles square? Seems a bit big for a city. I would love to hear your theories about it, such as whether those might be streets, or what??? I think I'll be coming back to this post again and again.

DeadMouse said...

I found this on the Fortean Times about it...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1150846/Atlantis-revealed--just-load-old-Googles.html

Romulus Crowe said...

DeadMouse - one for the conspiracy theorists, maybe?

There was a good comment on that article -

Whilst it may not be the lost city, one thing's true: it's man-made.

One thing I'd say about it - if it's there it's definitely not man-made. As far as I'm aware, no human can go that deep even with modern equipment.

There is the issue of 'why only there?' to the Google interpretation though. Why aren't these grids all over the place if they're an artefact of the sonar system used? In fact, why isn't the rest of the seadbed covered with lines?

I'm not going to argue for the reality of this image because I know nothing at all about deep-sea mapping or how sonar systems work, but I'll bet there are some out there who will.

In favour of it being a mapping artefact: the 'vertical' lines look roughly in line with magnetic North, which a ship would naturally use to follow a straight line.

Against: the lines aren't all over the seabed, which you'd expect if it was caused by the mapping system.

For certain: It's not man-made and it's not Atlantis or any other city.

This one won't be settled easily. The only way to settle it would be to go down and take photos. I won't do that. Nobody who thinks it's a mapping artefact is going to bother. Since it can't be Atlantis, private individuals will have problems getting funding. So it's not likely to happen.

I won't personally investigate this because it's at the bottom of the sea and that's not on my list of places to visit.

I think this is going to run and run. The face on Mars has been shown to be a trick of the light, the 'bigfoot' on Mars has been shown to be a three-inch rock, but they still have followings.

It'll be worth watching, I think. Besides, you never know what might turn up.

Romulus Crowe said...

SW- I can't see it as a city unless the inhabitants were at least as big as blue whales.

DeadMouse gave a link to a story where Google says it's a mapping artefact. I'd have to spend a lot of time learning about sonar and seabed mapping to argue about that so I'm not going to.

I'll keep an eye on the story though. It could turn out interesting.

Big, regular patterns do occur in nature now and then - I speak as one who has stood on the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland.

This seabed pattern is a hell of a lot bigger than that though. The question is, can it be proved to be there or not-there?

Not by me, that's for sure!

opinions powered by SendLove.to