A PaleoBabble reader (Wes) provided some Google Earth coordinates for the alleged undersea city structures I blogged about recently. I plugged in the coordinates and here are two images. Pretty interesting. I have no experience reading satellite photos, but the features are clear.
Here’s what you get with the coordinates:
Here’s a closeup:
Hi Dr. Mike~
Interesting to see this topic resurface. And here of all places. Yay! About two years ago there were images mirroring these that were displayed on some website (no recall) about some submerged/buried ancient SA cities. After much hoopla the imagery claims were debunked as being some sort of computer technology that appears under certain circumstances and within certain parameters. Nonetheless, I did search for the coordinates you displayed and discovered that they indicate a NE coastal zone of…Haiti. Probably nothing. Still I did feel a slight creep factor nudge. Oh well…………………..
Looks like a motherboard circuitry :-). Pretty cool.
If you look closely it almost looks like a cicuit board of sorts, Google Earth people have addressed this before (a few years back), something about a dark spot where the image of the circuitry is reflected back of some sorts, if this is true, who knows, I don’t build satelites, but you can see this all over google earth in many different spots. Is this a recoerd of the land before the flood, or just a reflection of the circutry of the lens? You decide.
@blop2008: yes, it does
@Dave in california: it really does look like that. If Google has commented on this. my vote would be for the circuitry. I’ll see if I can find their comments.
there goes that illusion! I used to work on an assembly line putting circuit boards together and, yes…that is exactly what it looks like.
Just re-read the original article and there is a new link waay at the bottom of new released pics that show “domed” structures which I can juust barely make out (and would not be on a mother board that I can recall). For what it’s worth, if this is really off whatever coast of Haiti, then due to recent events it seems rather likely, don’t you think?
Okay, really. For it to be a reflection of the circuitry if physically impossible. Completely different part of the satellite (think of it as a camera).
The new images make it fairly obvious that the images are compression artifacts. Not surprising, as Google Earth went through the same thing a few years ago with a “structure” off the coast of Africa. If you look at any GE image of a large body of water you will see the same sort of shapes. It’s the result of the way in which visual information is stored that only really becomes visible in images of this size.
Ruins discovered a few weeks(months?) ago in SA = real GE find.
This = probably excitement over nothing but totally awesome if it’s real.
@Jonnathan: agreed
@Isabelle Lafreniere: I’ve come across similar explanations; sound reasonable for sure; I haven’t been able to find anything where Google explains this, so if someone comes across that, I’d appreciate a link to it.
@MSH: Google shouldn’t need to explain it. It is an inherent technology quirk, effecting any image. You’ve seen how low quality digital images get all pixelly, right? It’s the same idea. Images get converted into data by the system, but when you want to compress that image down into anything approaching a reasonable file size, the system sort of…makes a data short-hand to help itself remember later what everything looked like. Some of the data gets lost in the process and some of the data gets multiplied to replace it.
So, long story short: the computer knows that these bodies of water are essentially the same color all the way across so it cuts down on how much of the specific information it stores. It probably, judging by the images, is taking a random sampling and blocking colors by where and how often they appear.
I am terrible at explaining this, as my understanding is only very basic but this is what the image looks like to me. I could always be wrong. How cool would it be if I was and it was “Atlantis”?
@Isabelle Lafreniere: interesting; naturally, I’m not holding my breath for Atlantis.