Alien Anomalies

Members Login
Post Info TOPIC: Comments from an Antarctic Scientist


Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
RE: Comments from an Antarctic Scientist
Permalink  
 


OK, lastly I have heard from a colleague of the British Antarctic Survey replier who works at the Australian Antarctic Survey.

I think it's probably a frozen lake. You would need to ask a geologist if it could be a lava tube but I doubt it.
We don't have high resolution imagery of the area so you would need to approach Digital Globe.


I will investigate Digital Globe and how much a high res image would be.

__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

My query is still rumbling around the British Antarctic Survey departments. Today I got this from the Mapping and Geographic Information Centre, British Antarctic Survey.

I have seen features like this before on aerial photography. I'm sure it's a partly frozen lake, with open water in the middle and ice around the periphery. The open water is black on the satellite image and looks like an opening.

The concensus is that it is likely to be a lake which is partly frozen (well, what else could it possibly be without any questions being asked?)

I have not heard anything from the Australians yet whose territory the feature is sitting on.



__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Detailed images of this area are obviously not available to any other countries. Thats interesting and strange too eh?
Q

 

To the British antarctic survey

In Google earth at 66deg 36min 13.39sec South 99deg 43min 12.27sec East there is a triangular structure in the middle of a rocky outcrop which looks remarkably like a cave in the ice.
The centre is black and there appears to be steep sides to it. I was amazed when I saw this but thought that it must be something else and I was mistaken.
Google Earth allows a fairly clear view down to an elevation of less than 150m which is another reason why I think I must be wrong about it being a cave.
I suppose there are ice caves and things like that in Antarctica, so why not this one?

I was wondering if you have another image of this area which would help me to see what is really at this position if it is not a cave?

and their reply

I forwarded your query on to our resident mapping expert who came back with the following:
"Having some experience in looking at satellite imagery and matching it up with what we see on the ground,
I can say with some certainty that this is a small, partially melted lake. Definitely not a cave.

We do not have detailed maps of this area as it is in Australian Antarctic territory. They may have some info as to whether the lake is mapped."

British Antarctic Survey
High Cross, Madingley Road
Cambridge, CB3 0ET, UK




-- Edited by qmantoo on Thursday 14th of March 2013 10:47:38 PM



-- Edited by qmantoo on Thursday 14th of March 2013 10:48:26 PM

__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

I have recently written to the australian antarctic survey and the UK antarctic survey saying that I think this might be a 'cave' because of the dark area in the middle and what looks like 'steep sides' to the cave. I will post their responses when/if I get them. Somehow a cave might be a better explanation than 'an entrance' perhaps and one which they may be able to accept as a possibility. I am also asking them if they have any better images of this area if they think it is not a 'cave'. we will see....

__________________


 



Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 305
Date:
Permalink  
 

1)Two possiblilities:
-Bad modelling
-FAIL.


__________________
What if Pinnochio says that his nose will grow longer?


Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1099
Date:
Permalink  
 

The reply to the enquiry states the following:

<< I have now consulted our Mapping Section and the leader of our section for logistics in Antarctica. They both say there are no buildings in the area you refer to. It is a steep terrain where it is not possible to travel with vehicles, let alone to erect buildings. >>

Note they say that at the location given it is steep terrain where it is not possible to travel with vehicles.......

Here is a general view of the same area. I have circled the area referred to.


ts_35_ctx_circ.jpg

__________________

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer



Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1099
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well done qmantoo in finding someone to write to. I have been looking for someone to contact. The content of the reply you have received does not surprise me at all. 

It's obvious the members of the Norwegian team at Troll are not aware of what is very close to them. It also means that no one from the base has surveyed the area on foot otherwise they would have come across the structures and other features.

Well, we know different that's for sure. The camera doesn't lie.

Since researching the area in question, I have come across many more locations in the same locale where many structures can definitely be observed. I would have thought that as the Troll station is accessed by air the pilots of the aircraft would have noticed the surface features. In the past I have flown many aircraft at an altitude of 1.5 to 2km and structures on the surface, although small, can be seen clearly.

Still, we know what scientists are like in keeping anything unusual under wraps so as not to stir things up and frighten the masses.

__________________

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Following along on this theme, and just on the offchance of a reply, I emailed the Norwegian government and sent them a copy of one of those Google earth images - not the one with the entrance, but one with what looked like buildings and structures. I never really thought that they would reply but surprisingly I did receive an official reply.

My initial email was as follows:
I am researching for an article I am writing about Antarctic bases and an area close to the Norwegian Troll Station has been brought to my attention by a colleague. There appears to be buildings and vehicles in this area and my first thought was that it was connected to your near-by facility. In order for you to know to which area I am referring, I have attached an image from Google Earth which as you can see, has been taken from the coordinates 72deg 01min 44.54sec S, 2deg 37min 12.57sec E which are close to the Troll Station.

I would like to get my facts correct before I go to press and so I would be most grateful if you could confirm or deny that this area is part of the Norwegian Troll Station research facility.


...And their reply:
I have now consulted our Mapping Section and the leader of our section for logistics in Antarctica. They both say there are no buildings in the area you refer to. It is a steep terrain where it is not possible to travel with vehicles, let alone to erect buildings.

They also say that they cannot see anything but natural formations in the terrain on the picture (rock/gravel).





__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

On this page http://lima.usgs.gov/customDownload.php it says that all downloads are at 15m resolution. Not as good as some satellite images of other worlds but possibly the best we get without paying for it!

Jp2000 download of 192Mb or GeoTiff at 90-something Mb.

If it shows this area, it may be better than GoogleEarth. smile.gif

Good site with names of bases and coordinates too



-- Edited by qmantoo on Thursday 27th of January 2011 09:21:58 AM

__________________


 



Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1099
Date:
Permalink  
 

The unfortunate situation is that there is a conspiracy to keep genuine and authentic information from the public at large and contain it just for themselves. Being a retired scientist, I am now pleased that I now have the freedom to express my views and opinions without the constraints imposed within the scientific community to 'tone things down'.

We all know what what there is to see in the GE images.

There is no conspiracy theory in relation to the images I have posted. 

When is the scientific world going to realize the camera doesn't lie.

__________________

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

I agree that it does look to me as if the structure in the second image is not a lake, and the structures around it make me think that as well.

However, I was not getting anywhere convincing him and he said in his last paragraph (which I did not post here) that he is not really interested in conspiracy theories, so I just thanked him for his time and moved on...
What else can be done?

Short of finding another better picture of the same area, which is unlikely, we are not going to get any better resolution unless we pay a couple of thousand dollars for a custom satellite picture.

__________________


 



Dedicated to the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1099
Date:
Permalink  
 

qmantoo, I have read the replies you received from the Antatarctic scientist and my opinion is either he is hiding something or he is saying the images in GE are false. Personally, I feel the scientific world would rather keep vital information away from interested parties.

The first image you show appears to be a semi-frozen lake. It is at the following location. I do not see what the lake has to do with the object showing in the second image.

-77.344734     160.997386

The second image is of the anomalous 'dome' structure which looks nothing like a lake. How the scientist can say it looks like a lake is beyond me. Do some of these scientists really know what they are talking about?

The large dome anomaly showing in your second image is definitely a genuine construction which has been fabricated for a specific purpose. I am amazed your contact cannot tell the difference between a large construction and a lake.

Of course, it could be just ignorance on the part of the scientific world as they would not know of the link between Mars, the Moon and this planet. We are at an advantage in knowing probably more than they do about what to look out for when it comes to making comparisons. 

__________________

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Just so that we can see what we are discussing here I have extracted the images from the two links and show them here.

Link to the lake to which the scientist is referring

Below: Original thread on this forum discussing the image below

The comparison link to Google Maps which shows the 'other lake' is here

It is true, that there is an area of blue over to the right in the second image which could be more water, and there are areas of 'snow' which could be considered a path for water to flow into this 'lake', and from the A to the Southeast, there is a channel which looks like it could carry water, but I still think it looks like an entrance. I just need more convincing argument that it is a lake. It does not look like the other one above either and I am not sure about the topography of the area. What do others think now we have another explanation.



__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

And a followup email which is interesting.... My reply is in grey.  Perhaps we ARE making alien mountains out of molehills as he said. You decide. One thing that I have learned from this is that there are no polar bears in the Antarctic, so apparently my education was lacking.

I agree with you, it must be very difficult to build structures down
there in the freezing cold and this is what makes it even more amazing
when you consider that there are huge underground complexes. I am
assuming that there ARE huge underground complexes because of this
attached Google Earth image (which I did not discover) at 66deg 36min
13.39sec South 99deg 43min 12.27sec East which shows an entrance of some
kind. Do you know of any documented bases at that position which might
fit the image?

It's just a small partially frozen lake.
Check this one out for comparision:
(I have put this into a link - Q) 


The point is, it is so out-of-character with the way humans build their
bases in the Antarctic which are normally prefabricated structures and
bolted together. Of course, this is the best we can do in the freezing
cold, but this image shows no external evidence of diggings and
construction and so I assume that it has been here for quite some time.
(Google Earth image is a couple of years old at least)

The current view of those coordinates only show ice.

This entrance is easy to see and I feel it is difficult to describe it
as something else. This is mainly because it is in the middle of
Antarctica where there should be nothing else, apart from penguins and
polar bears and the occasional human scientific base. There are no
helicopter pads, no large fuel dumps, and nothing else that constitute
all the support requirements for a base above ground.

I don't want to be mean, but if you don't even know that there aren't any
polar bears in Antarctica, something that we learn in kindergarden, how can
you be trusted to identify 'interesting' geological formations down there ?


"What do you mean away from liquid water ? Out of 50 something stations,
all are on the coast, with only 3 inland (Vostok, South Pole and Concordia). As
for geothermal heat, the only place that may have some is the Erebus
volcano near McMurdo..."
In the marsanomalyresearch.com link I sent you, there appears to be
liquid water in various places which is strange at such extreme
temperatures.

In summer, it get warm enough during the day to melt some ice. See the dry 
valley link above.



-- Edited by qmantoo on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 01:02:03 AM

__________________


 



Teaching the truth

Status: Offline
Posts: 1891
Date:
Permalink  
 

Recently I wrote an email to a scientist who used to work at one of the Antarctic research stations and asked them a couple of questions. Here is the answer I received with some sentences removed to maintain anonymity. With my original email I sent links to the 2 marsanomalyresearch reports which both suggest there is something unusual going on in Antarctica. My original comments have > > in front of them.

Just a few considerations:
- it's very hard to build anything there, to say nothing of something 'big'
- everything that's going on down there is public research and available
somewhere, although I agree that it's very hard to get information on what's
going on at russian stations
- goggle map/earth coverage of Antarctica is notoriously poor (the satellites
used just aren't meant for this far down lattitude) I worked on this recently
and there's free Nasa satellite imagery available that's better. But you can
also pay for Spot images or other satellites. When you do, you notice that all
those google map artifacts simply disapear.
- the 'smudge effect' is simply 2 images joined, where one has clouds... The
algo used by google maps eliminate clouds over mainland, but fails over ice.
- the long 'anomalous looking objects' on the pics are geological structures
very common in Antarctica where a glacier has scraped a rock in a single
direction

> > Do you think that it is possible that there is something there that
> > the authorities would like to keep hidden from us? Were there any
> > strange rumours when you were working there?
Even during the cold war there wasn't much of interest down there. Even less
now that the russians are out of money. There's also a lot of old equipment
abandoned around old stations like Mirny, and that may look a bit suspicious 
on bad (or even good) satellite pics.

> > I wondered if you have any comment
> > to make on what is actually in Antacrtica, and why the different
> > countries scientific bases are all far away from liquid water (as
> > shown in the link to marsanomalresearch below) and possible geothermal heat? It would make
> > much more sense to have bases nearer to a warmer microclimate if one
> > existed there in Antactica.
What do you mean away from liquid water ? Out of 50 something stations, all
are on the coast, with only 3 inland (Vostok, South Pole and Concordia). As
for geothermal heat, the only place that may have some is the Erebus volcano
near McMurdo but (1) that would be hard to use (just like everywhere else),
and (2) scietific stations are not put in places that make them convenient to
heat but in places that allow good scientific research.

As for the microclimate, it's somewhat true: most of the stations are in the peninsula, which is warmer that the rest of Antarctica.

 




__________________


 

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard