I’m somewhat interested in the Atlantis myth and I’ve read quite extensively about it. The photos in the link are screenshots of a place in the Caribbean seafloor, 14600 ft below sea level, and were taken by me.
In the link provided, just click “Close & Read Quora.” You can sign in with Facebook or Google but that’s not necessary (unless you want to use Quora yourself).
What do you think of these photos?
Those aren’t photos, and you didn’t take them.
You can’t trust Google Earth’s images of the sea floor. The sources they use have various different methods which each leave distinct signatures, such as this, which is caused by the trail the of the ship used to scan the ocean floor at that point.
You’d need proper high res deep sea scan imagery if you want to discover anything amazing under the ocean, not just disparate collections of low resolution imagery used to flesh out expanses of emptiness on a digital model.
But resolution is a relative thing. Resolution is always a question of whether a particular degree of resolution is good enough, and iirc the resolution at the region imaged is 100m. This means that anything larger than 100m can be trusted (and the narrowest of the rings are about 600 feet across, with the whole “structure” being 1.5 miles across), with the exception of the distinct signatures you mentioned, which are not size-dependent.
But there is a limited range of signatures; i.e. they can be classified into a distinct and finite set of categories, in that all of the artifacts resulting from the imaging process of the various sources, are the result of a specific cause. For instance, the grid-like artifact was and is caused by the motion of the ship scanning the ocean floor, as you said yourself. Other such artifacts would be attributable to other such causes, rather than artifacts being the result of random and unexplainable causes.
The question is, then, does the pattern shown in the images fall into such a category of artifacts resulting from the process used to obtain them? That I do not know. I agree with your point that more detailed investigation must be done to make a definitive conclusion.
Sorry to let you down, but that is clearly the sort of artifacting often seen with this sort of imaging. There may well be a long-lost circular city beneath the waves, but the screenshots here provide no evidence thereof.
They’re not “photos,” but it is entirely reasonable to believe that the OP took the screenshots as was claimed in the OP. Can you support your claim to the contrary?
It looks to me like the submerged remains of a superimposed set of alluvial fans - sediment pours out of a channel and spreads out in a circular pattern. A series of floods builds up concentric series of heaps, each on top of the previous.
Might not be that, but it’s more likely that than Atlantis. It’s more likely to be a hoax by Google than being Atlantis.
Actually, I’ve changed my mind. It’s Atlantis. OP, have you considered pouring your life’s savings into an expedition to this strange old world? I’m sure you’ll easily make the money back with salvage rights, if not by selling your story to the movie studios to capitalize on your inevitable instant fame.
I thought it looked like an alluvial fan too, but upon closer inspection, the circular pattern seems to encircle the whole circle so to speak. Shouldn’t an alluvial fan-like structure be at most semicircular? At least that is what I am accustomed to with alluvial fans on land.
Hitting Print Screen is not “taking photos” was my point.
Hitting “print screen” is absolutely “taking” a screen shot. I agreed in my previous post that you were correct that the images do not qualify as “photos,” but your claim that the images were not taken by the OP is demonstrably false.
Maybe you would be better served by focusing on the subject of the thread rather than quibbling over minutiae like diction. That sort of thing comes off as ridiculous even when you’re right.
The images used in Google Earth were not taken by the OP. They were taken by a Surveying Ship. He has just drawn a virtual arrow to point at them. It is like me linking to a scan of Lindsay Lohan from a gossip magazine and my claiming to be the paparazzi photographer.
As to the subject of the thread, Atlantis, the mythical city, evidence of existence currently nil, I will not waste any time on.
He didn’t say he took the pictures.
(bolding mine).
Maybe. Hard to say - certainly jumping to the conclusion that you just found Atlantis is ridiculous, however.
Can you provide a reference to the location? I want to look around at other nearby features.
I sent you a PM with some information as to the location.
I read the OP, specifically this sentance “The photos in the link are screenshots of a place in the Caribbean seafloor, 14600 ft below sea level, and were taken by me.” exactly the same as GuanoLad - that the linked images were screenshots of photographs taken by the OP. I didn’t click the link because A) I don’t know the URL or the OP, and “Click here to look at my pictures” is a pretty common Trojan horse to deliver virii, spyware, malware, etc. and B) if the OP lied about taking the pictures the red flag sent up by A) just got bigger and brighter. If the OP had said that they were linking to anomalous images from Google Earth I at least would not have had the second concern.
I’d say that diction makes a world of difference.
Thank you - I had a look at it and searched around nearby - it’s clear there is a great deal of artifacting in the imaging here.
Not Atlantis. Probably not even a real feature.
Where did that quote come from? I don’t see it anywhere in the thread, (other than your post)
It’s in the linked page (the Quora page with the pictures in the OP).
It’s hard to tell sarcasm online…serious or no?
No
What do you think of the Muertos Trough?
