A British aeronautical engineer played with the new Google Earth 5.0 software, which also includes underwater data, and noticed an interesting pattern about a thousand kilometers west of the Canary Islands, which includes lines that resemble a network of streets. Google in response: This is the pattern of the boat's track that activated the underwater sonar
In the last week, the Internet has been buzzing with rumors that a photograph that appeared on the Google Earth website proves the existence of the mythical continent of Atlantis, which according to legend sank into the sea, and locates it west of the coast of Africa.
According to the report, a British aeronautical engineer was playing with the new Google Earth 5.0 software, which also includes underwater data, and noticed an interesting pattern about a thousand kilometers west of the Canary Islands, which includes lines that resemble a network of streets. Even the most excited geologist argued that the place needed further examination. However, Google confirmed that the template is only a product of the data collection process. The data about the seabed is usually collected from ships that use sonar to measure the path of the bottom. The lines reflect the course of the boat on its way to collect the data.
"Is it true thatMany amazing discoveries were made using Google Earth, including an ancient forest in Mozambique that serves as a home for species that were previously unknown, and the remains of an ancient Roman villa," said a Google spokeswoman, "in this case, however, what users see are incorrect visualizations resulting from the data collection process. These lines mark the route of the boat that collected the data," she said. "The fact that there are a lot of empty spots between each of these lines shows how little we know about the oceans," the spokeswoman concluded.
The legend of Atlantis has excited the public imagination for centuries. In recent years, "evidence" of the existence of the sunken continent has been discoveredCyprus beaches And bSouthern Spain.
Atlantis is a legendary island mentioned in Plato's writings, as a great city that sank into the sea. According to Plato's calculation, Atlantis was a great naval power located before the Straits of Hercules, which conquered large parts of Western Europe and Africa 9,000 years before the time of Solon, or about 9600 BC. After failed attempts to invade Athens, Atletnis sank in the ocean "in one day and night of misfortune". Historians are experts on whether and to what extent Plato's story and calculations were inspired by traditional stories told at the time.
The picture in question is at the following location: 31 15'15.53N 24 15'30.53W.
18 תגובות
flint
You claim that we should not accept the explanation of scientists who understand what it is about, and that we should check every delusional explanation invented by people without any understanding, and no logic?
It would be silly to determine from the picture alone that this is Atlantis,
But it would also be reckless to so quickly accept Google's claim that these are sonar signals and not something else.
Google offers a "logical" explanation, but without any evidence to indicate that their explanation is indeed the correct one.
In addition to that, a simple check on yahoo and bing maps show exactly the same underwater pattern (although on theirs it is more blurred and dark, so you have to look carefully).
Google's claim could be true provided that both yahoo and bing purchased the same photos/sonar data that Google purchased (which I don't think is likely because then I would expect them to be of the same quality). And even then it is not necessary that the source of the pattern is a distortion of a photograph/scan and not the structure of the seabed or something else.
B. Doron is one hundred percent right.
Thank you Oren for your efforts.
There is no hope here. Either yes or no. Irful is not desirable.
I looked at the three pictures you provided in the links:
The first is unclear.
In the second, as I thought, I saw a triangle in magnification.
In the third, there is an outline of the seabed, but there are no straight lines there that could indicate human construction, which I saw in the original picture. (By the way, Plato's Atlantis was not described in this way except in the context of circles and rings to the best of my memory).
I read both the articles you suggested earlier, and also the readers' comments there. Some make exactly my arguments.
As for the problems with the sonar - that Google will handle the product, before uploading it for mapping, if this is required.
Thanks again.
Doron and others,
Sorry to "ruin" your hope for mysterious cities, but here are a few more examples.
Found a little east of the "original site":
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&t=h&ll=31.16581,-20.181885&spn=5.873809,6.899414&z=8
And here are some more examples:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZYqYi4xigk/SaMkb4Mb71I/AAAAAAAACXU/xhfF1jxxxEQ/s1600-h/Picture+6.png
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/atlantis-no-it-atlant-isnt.html
And it is even possible that the type of sonar they used is of the Side-scan sonar type, which is not able to scan the bottom directly below it and creates images identical to what we see - "trails" unless you correct it digitally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-scan_sonar
1. Oren, thanks, I will read the articles.
2. Yigal B.: You may be right and the words of "Point" are sarcastic - but there is still a logical fallacy in them.
As for the theory of deductive logic - we did not invent it. And there are certainly several theories of logic.
The decision on who is present and who is not is indeed not permanent, in my opinion.
For example: Are the particles detected in Sarn's particle accelerators in the fence? And if so - were they around in 1850 for example? (before they were even invented in theory).
3. I did not establish that Atlantis is there. What I said is: that it is possible that there is some remnant of land there, which is not only sonar signals. For my part, let them call him a radish.
4. Even if this method of creating a Google-Earth map is not common, there are certainly other cases where the whole thing went wrong - so Google will see more cases, before trying to explain the ear of a ship's sonar.
5. If it is indeed a section of the map with a bug - it is better that they eliminate it, and leave a white site - until the problem is solved.
B. Doron,
Do you really believe that there is one logic for those who you (and others like you) decide are present and another logic for those who are not present? And what will happen if someone else decides whether others are present or not?
Regarding the words 'point', it seems to me that they were being sarcastic and trying to go with your logic.
Doron,
I found an article that explains in more depth. The explanation is this:
Google is used to build a high-resolution map of the ocean floor. But sometimes this is not enough and sonar ships are used. Usually they prefer not to use these ships, because even though sound detectors (sonar) are much more accurate, they are more expensive and take much more time than using satellites. The waste of time is not only because a satellite requires little time to receive a picture, but also because it gives a picture of the seabed Using sonar, the ships must move slowly. And the reason for this (there was something in what Ben Ner said maybe...) is that if the ships move too fast, they create noise that causes interference with the sonar, in the way you see in the picture.
Usually when sonar images are superimposed on satellite images (a procedure that does not happen often, but only in specific areas of the oceans where sonar was used) the few lines that are created are "lost" in the digital processing. But this time the combination did not work as desired and created the image you see.
Here are 2 articles that may explain better:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/google-explains-watery-mystery-of-atlantis/
http://news.cnet.com/google-diving-into-3d-mapping-of-oceans/?tag=nefd.blgs
Distinguished experts: I have no interest in trying to convince you. You will believe what you want and I will believe what I will.
As mentioned: photos of other areas in the ocean that show similar sonar networks - will help convince me more, of the plausibility of the claims. It is very easy to "order" people who are not in the technologies in anything. For example: Go get the confectioner.
Oren: Thanks for the explanation.
Yigal G.: The logic you brought is relevant regarding non-existents. It is not relevant if there is presence. A man will live by his beliefs. (or in their absence).
Point: Your logic in answer 5 is wrong. It is recommended to study a little deductive logic and the topic of logical fallacies.
A. Ben-Ner: Thank you for sharing your experiences. As a matter of fact, I was not convinced. Waves and trails pass them by, and I don't think they will leave a systematic network.
7. Idan - assuming you are right - I just asked that they see such pictures from other places.
8. Gillian - The question is not whether this is Atlantis or not - but whether there are about 1000 km west of the Canary Islands - remains of a city or island or continent that were inhabited, of which remains remain - and that sank into the sea. The question is whether such remains were seen in the pictures or not.
9. Thank you for the alert responses to my comments as well.
I am puzzled by the fact that serious scientific magazines even refer to the delusional claim that the continent of Atlantis was discovered on Google.
Another proof of the inability to differentiate between main and secondary...
There are many such signs under the sea almost everywhere...
For all fans of:
UBMs-aliens-unexplained romantic mysteries and various cover-up conspiracies.
As one who spent, in his youth, several years on
the sea Please allow me to report to you as follows:
Most of the time, the surface of the sea is not these "rough" parts with small waves created by the influence of the wind. However, when a vessel sails on the water, it leaves behind a trail, a strip, where the water is smoother than the water on the sides of the strip. The lifespan of the strip, which is actually the vessel's "trace" on the surface of the water, is surprisingly quite long, and depends on a number of factors such as: the strength of the wind and the size of the vessel. In addition, there is another factor that extends the life of the trail.
Most vessels at sea are driven by diesel engines, which emit smoke and oil vapors into the water. These mix with the water. As a result, the trail (streak) left on the surface of the water, following the vessel, is saturated with tiny oil droplets and smoke particles, which turn the surface The water is thicker compared to the water on the sides of the trail. As a result of the concentration of oil and smoke particles in the trail, on the surface of the water, the refraction of the light rays on the trail is different from their refraction on its sides, and this is clearly visible to the eye. of oil vapors and smoke and is felt mainly by those who sail there in a low boat, close to the water. Sometimes quite a large number of hours pass, until the water is sufficiently mixed and the trail is blurred.
As mentioned, as someone who has experienced several years on the sea, I tend to see in the lines that appear in the photo, the traces of the ship and not the traces of Atlantis, peace be upon her. Of course, this can be easily checked by re-photographing the site.
Simple logic.
The fact that there is no proof that Atlantis is not there, does not mean that there really is not there. And hence there is indeed an Atlantis there.
He who does not understand logic is better off not being born.
Doron,
You claim that 'in addition: the fact that the sonar shows such a route - does not mean that there is no Atlantis or the remains of a city or an island that sunk there.'
The fact that I can't show and see the traces of the dragon in my basement to anyone and not myself, and I can't see and show the dragon itself, doesn't mean there isn't a dragon there!
and also,
The fact that God (somehow) is not revealed to anyone's eyes and not to my eyes and does not prove his existence in any way and also all the things that are said in his name are nonsense and more and more, does not prove that he does not exist!
Doron,
Read the article in depth - the lines were created by the ship that created the map they put on the satellite image. The image was not only created with the help of the satellite, but with the help of the sonar of ships that give the information they scan to Google. The ships that scan give more complete information about the route and the depth of the bottom. So, in combination with satellite images and sonar images that overlay them on top of each other, a comprehensive map of the sea urchins is also created.
But Google, probably a simple human error (or simply saving resources), dressed up the images that came from the sonar without thinking that the ship's tracks would look like there were "grooves" in the bottom.
This is also a puzzling matter. One might think that the place that was discovered is the only one in the days when tests are carried out using sonar (for what? Mapping?) and if so - why are we not shown that there are such photographs of the ocean floor in other places?
In addition: the fact that the sonar shows such a route - does not mean that there is no Atlantis or the remains of a city or island that sunk there.
So if you are not skeptical - follow Google. I won't be convinced until divers go down there (or go down there again). At the moment, Google's approach seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate.
Google is complicit in hiding the truth from the public.
These are underwater roads that are used by extraterrestrials visiting Earth.