Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. This is Robert Lamb and it is Saturday. So again we're going to the Vault once more, this time for the episode another Enigmatic underwater Image. This is a continuation on the last Vault episode we did, where we're looking at difficult to analyze images from the deep ocean and how they can spin off them in the minds of onlookers into paranormal intrigue. This one originally published eight fifteen, twenty twenty three. Here we go, let's dive in.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. This is Robert Lamb and it is Saturday. So again we're going to the Vault once more, this time for the episode another Enigmatic underwater Image. This is a continuation on the last Vault episode we did, where we're looking at difficult to analyze images from the deep ocean and how they can spin off them in the minds of onlookers into paranormal intrigue. This one originally published eight fifteen, twenty twenty three. Here we go, let's dive in.

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.

Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb.

Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb.

And I'm Joe McCormick. And hey, we're back to anomalous imagery. In the pre episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, we were looking at some photographs that people have wanted to sort into the proof of Aliens Confirmed column, and we ended up talking about reasons why that's not necessarily a wise or well informed move, and we thought we might come back to talk about more images of this sort.

And I'm Joe McCormick. And hey, we're back to anomalous imagery. In the pre episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, we were looking at some photographs that people have wanted to sort into the proof of Aliens Confirmed column, and we ended up talking about reasons why that's not necessarily a wise or well informed move, and we thought we might come back to talk about more images of this sort.

And you know what, here we are, Yeah, in the last episode, and this is this is a situation where it's probably helpful if you listen to that last episode, but it's not necessarily a part one in part two, so I don't know do what you will regarding these episodes. But in the last episode, we discussed the so called el tennan antenna, a deep sea photograph of something taken in nineteen sixty four that ultimately led to a positive identification of a specific species of deep sea sponge, but also fed a great deal of paranormal and ufology speculation about alien technology and global energy grids and the like. We discussed how images and data like this that dwell in a kind of low res realm of evidence often play into arguments for supernatural or other worldly explanations instead of mundane natural world explanations.

And you know what, here we are, Yeah, in the last episode, and this is this is a situation where it's probably helpful if you listen to that last episode, but it's not necessarily a part one in part two, so I don't know do what you will regarding these episodes. But in the last episode, we discussed the so called el tennan antenna, a deep sea photograph of something taken in nineteen sixty four that ultimately led to a positive identification of a specific species of deep sea sponge, but also fed a great deal of paranormal and ufology speculation about alien technology and global energy grids and the like. We discussed how images and data like this that dwell in a kind of low res realm of evidence often play into arguments for supernatural or other worldly explanations instead of mundane natural world explanations.

That's right. So we were developing an idea somewhat jumping off of some offhand terminology use in comments I've heard in interviews with a science writer and skeptical UFO researcher named Mick West, and I think the phrase I had heard him use at some point was the low information zone. But we were also talking about the idea of the low resolution zone, and so the idea we were developing was that it's in cases of evidence containing less information or existing in a space of lower resolution that supernatural or alien explanations tend to retain the aura of viability. They seem to some people like this might be a good explanation, And it's in cases of high resolution or high information where the photo, if it's a photo where it's like really sharp and taken from multiple angles, and we have a good idea exactly where and when it was taken, maybe other people can go check up on it, people with relevant knowledge have had a look at it. These are the cases that end up very very often having pretty clear explanations from within the known range of natural causes. In other words, there seems to be a pattern where a fuzzy photo creates way more mythology than a sharp one. And I think this is applical, applicable in the broader sense, not just in pure resolution of photos, but in the general sense of information like evidence, this kind of vague and fuzzy and not well situated within an informational context seems oh yeah, maybe that is aliens. And the further you turn up the resolution, the more accurate information and context you have, the more often it seems like, oh yeah, that's a plastic bag, or that's an airplane, or that's a constellation of stars.

That's right. So we were developing an idea somewhat jumping off of some offhand terminology use in comments I've heard in interviews with a science writer and skeptical UFO researcher named Mick West, and I think the phrase I had heard him use at some point was the low information zone. But we were also talking about the idea of the low resolution zone, and so the idea we were developing was that it's in cases of evidence containing less information or existing in a space of lower resolution that supernatural or alien explanations tend to retain the aura of viability. They seem to some people like this might be a good explanation, And it's in cases of high resolution or high information where the photo, if it's a photo where it's like really sharp and taken from multiple angles, and we have a good idea exactly where and when it was taken, maybe other people can go check up on it, people with relevant knowledge have had a look at it. These are the cases that end up very very often having pretty clear explanations from within the known range of natural causes. In other words, there seems to be a pattern where a fuzzy photo creates way more mythology than a sharp one. And I think this is applical, applicable in the broader sense, not just in pure resolution of photos, but in the general sense of information like evidence, this kind of vague and fuzzy and not well situated within an informational context seems oh yeah, maybe that is aliens. And the further you turn up the resolution, the more accurate information and context you have, the more often it seems like, oh yeah, that's a plastic bag, or that's an airplane, or that's a constellation of stars.

Yeah. And as we discussed in the last episode, and we'll continue to discuss here, to whatever extent, you can also cut out the context for the image, or ignore the context and or ignore the expertise in a given field that could be vital to understanding what you're looking at exactly.

Yeah. And as we discussed in the last episode, and we'll continue to discuss here, to whatever extent, you can also cut out the context for the image, or ignore the context and or ignore the expertise in a given field that could be vital to understanding what you're looking at exactly.

Yeah. So the background knowledge of the observer can also be one of the information states, and that can be high information or low.

Yeah. So the background knowledge of the observer can also be one of the information states, and that can be high information or low.

Yeah. And it's not necessarily a situation either where someone is like willfully, I refuse to listen to the experts because because you know, I know what I see. You know, sometimes it's maybe a little more nuanced than that. So I do want to acknowledge that. But just throwing that out there as well. We'll come back to the idea as we roll farward.

Yeah. And it's not necessarily a situation either where someone is like willfully, I refuse to listen to the experts because because you know, I know what I see. You know, sometimes it's maybe a little more nuanced than that. So I do want to acknowledge that. But just throwing that out there as well. We'll come back to the idea as we roll farward.

Now.

Now.

Another one of the ideas we talked about in the last episode was how popular it seems underwater images in particular are in the UFO slash UAP and general fringe explanation idea space. Of course, the Eltannan object was an underwater photo, and I mentioned in the last episode the idea that apparently anomalous. Underwater images are especially useful nucleation points for these types of narratives because they're sort of inherently low resolution or low information. The details are often obscured. Images of things underwater often look weird, but you can't tell exactly what they are, which means you can start making up whatever explanation you find the most exciting. And I was thinking about how underwater imagery often qualifies as low information evidence in multiple dimensions at once, So like the original image is usually grainy and indistinct if it's taken in visible light, like it's a photograph taken invisible light, light conditions are usually low, and sometimes they're is you know, is something obscuring the image in the water. Maybe the water is cloudy, maybe not. Sometimes the image is not even based on visible light. Maybe we're looking at a sonar image or something like that, which further complicates your ability to identify what it is you're looking at. And sometimes things are even obscured in other ways, like partially buried or have things on top of them. Beyond all this, objects and formations that may be common underwater do not seem common to people who spend their lives on land and on the surface. Think of the sponge we talked about last time. If you lived on the ocean floor, you'd probably recognize that. You would be like a tree to you. You know, you've seen lots of these before, but not living on the ocean floor. That's totally weird. You've never seen anything like it. You have no idea what it could be.

Another one of the ideas we talked about in the last episode was how popular it seems underwater images in particular are in the UFO slash UAP and general fringe explanation idea space. Of course, the Eltannan object was an underwater photo, and I mentioned in the last episode the idea that apparently anomalous. Underwater images are especially useful nucleation points for these types of narratives because they're sort of inherently low resolution or low information. The details are often obscured. Images of things underwater often look weird, but you can't tell exactly what they are, which means you can start making up whatever explanation you find the most exciting. And I was thinking about how underwater imagery often qualifies as low information evidence in multiple dimensions at once, So like the original image is usually grainy and indistinct if it's taken in visible light, like it's a photograph taken invisible light, light conditions are usually low, and sometimes they're is you know, is something obscuring the image in the water. Maybe the water is cloudy, maybe not. Sometimes the image is not even based on visible light. Maybe we're looking at a sonar image or something like that, which further complicates your ability to identify what it is you're looking at. And sometimes things are even obscured in other ways, like partially buried or have things on top of them. Beyond all this, objects and formations that may be common underwater do not seem common to people who spend their lives on land and on the surface. Think of the sponge we talked about last time. If you lived on the ocean floor, you'd probably recognize that. You would be like a tree to you. You know, you've seen lots of these before, but not living on the ocean floor. That's totally weird. You've never seen anything like it. You have no idea what it could be.

Yeah, as we touched on in that one, the so called antenna occurred as a singular object without any fellow antenna around it in this one photograph. Previous dredges in the deep ocean had revealed places where they seem to be quite numerous.

Yeah, as we touched on in that one, the so called antenna occurred as a singular object without any fellow antenna around it in this one photograph. Previous dredges in the deep ocean had revealed places where they seem to be quite numerous.

That's right. Sometimes they're kind of a forest, but in this case it wasn't. It was just one standing alone in the image. So that I don't know, that mean to seem more monolithic and kind of strange and dangerous and inviting of calling out for some kind of otherworldly explanation. Finally, I was thinking about one more thing about the low information nature of underwater images, especially in the case of deep sea objects. It's difficult, expensive, and sometimes impossible for other people to check the object for themselves because it's on the bottom of the ocean, So you are unlikely to get somebody else imaging the same thing with different equipment in different conditions to get more context and clarity. Unless it's like a really famous and valuable thing and you've you know, published coordinates of exactly where it is, there's like huge interest in it. Maybe, but like for the most part, if you're talking about something on the bottom of the ocean, whatever imagery you release of it that you initially produce, it's that you know that that's going to be all there is.

That's right. Sometimes they're kind of a forest, but in this case it wasn't. It was just one standing alone in the image. So that I don't know, that mean to seem more monolithic and kind of strange and dangerous and inviting of calling out for some kind of otherworldly explanation. Finally, I was thinking about one more thing about the low information nature of underwater images, especially in the case of deep sea objects. It's difficult, expensive, and sometimes impossible for other people to check the object for themselves because it's on the bottom of the ocean, So you are unlikely to get somebody else imaging the same thing with different equipment in different conditions to get more context and clarity. Unless it's like a really famous and valuable thing and you've you know, published coordinates of exactly where it is, there's like huge interest in it. Maybe, but like for the most part, if you're talking about something on the bottom of the ocean, whatever imagery you release of it that you initially produce, it's that you know that that's going to be all there is.

Yeah, Yeah, Because I mean, ultimately, whether your idea is based in just pure scientific inquiry or if it's based in some sort of paranormal interest or some sort of fringe theory, you're still going to have to somehow get that funding together to pay for an expedition to an extreme environment. And you know, are the numbers going to add up at the end of the day.

Yeah, Yeah, Because I mean, ultimately, whether your idea is based in just pure scientific inquiry or if it's based in some sort of paranormal interest or some sort of fringe theory, you're still going to have to somehow get that funding together to pay for an expedition to an extreme environment. And you know, are the numbers going to add up at the end of the day.

And in some cases, I think it might be more financially lucrative for an object to remain in the low information zone than it would be to increase the information because that might well dispel the mystique surrounding it.

And in some cases, I think it might be more financially lucrative for an object to remain in the low information zone than it would be to increase the information because that might well dispel the mystique surrounding it.

Exactly. Yes, Because as we touched on in the first episode. You know, these images become kind of articles of faith within a given belief system, within a given worldview, and yeah, you go down there, there's you've got to admit, okay, you know, lining up with your hopes and dreams. Maybe you'll get that high res image of this thing and it will literally change the way we think about ourselves and we think about the world. But what are the chances that you'll just know it'll be that face on Mars scenario, you know where Oh well, you realize that once you have some different imagery, some different information to go on, the face is not there at all, and then how are you going to feel?

Exactly. Yes, Because as we touched on in the first episode. You know, these images become kind of articles of faith within a given belief system, within a given worldview, and yeah, you go down there, there's you've got to admit, okay, you know, lining up with your hopes and dreams. Maybe you'll get that high res image of this thing and it will literally change the way we think about ourselves and we think about the world. But what are the chances that you'll just know it'll be that face on Mars scenario, you know where Oh well, you realize that once you have some different imagery, some different information to go on, the face is not there at all, and then how are you going to feel?

So this brings us to the particular underwater image that you dug up, Rob that we're going to talk about today. This image is the so called Baltic Sea anomaly. Would you like to introduce it?

So this brings us to the particular underwater image that you dug up, Rob that we're going to talk about today. This image is the so called Baltic Sea anomaly. Would you like to introduce it?

Sure? Yeah. I found this the way probably I think a lot of people find it is that you find these various lists of strange, unexplained things beneath the ocean, and they're generally they're generally a weird array of objects and alleged objects, some of which are verified realities, some are you know, blurry, low res images. But yeah, this and this sonar image was taken by Swedish Ocean X on the floor of the Northern Baltic Sea at the center of the Gulf of Bothnia in June twenty eleven during a hunt for I believe possible sunken treasure. So they were on the lookout with their imagery for you know, things that might be ships, things that might be man made objects on the bottom. Now, the image that came out of all of this, the sonar image, has captured the imagination of ufologists because it does look roundish and many illustrations and I want to stress that illustrations based on this imagery readily, and these will readily come up and search for you. Don't worry. You don't have to look hard for them. In fact, it's harder to sort of wean them out and just focus on the sonar data they lean into. This kind of interpretation of this roundish object is perhaps a millennium Falcon s spaceship, or perhaps something akin to the ship that the engineers have in the Alien franchise.

Sure? Yeah. I found this the way probably I think a lot of people find it is that you find these various lists of strange, unexplained things beneath the ocean, and they're generally they're generally a weird array of objects and alleged objects, some of which are verified realities, some are you know, blurry, low res images. But yeah, this and this sonar image was taken by Swedish Ocean X on the floor of the Northern Baltic Sea at the center of the Gulf of Bothnia in June twenty eleven during a hunt for I believe possible sunken treasure. So they were on the lookout with their imagery for you know, things that might be ships, things that might be man made objects on the bottom. Now, the image that came out of all of this, the sonar image, has captured the imagination of ufologists because it does look roundish and many illustrations and I want to stress that illustrations based on this imagery readily, and these will readily come up and search for you. Don't worry. You don't have to look hard for them. In fact, it's harder to sort of wean them out and just focus on the sonar data they lean into. This kind of interpretation of this roundish object is perhaps a millennium Falcon s spaceship, or perhaps something akin to the ship that the engineers have in the Alien franchise.

I was thinking something that, yeah, from Prometheus. It looks like that technology style.

I was thinking something that, yeah, from Prometheus. It looks like that technology style.

Yeah, which is an iconic derelict spaceship that has mysteries aboard that we absolutely should on Earth, We actually absolutely should get in there and get some of that right.

Yeah, which is an iconic derelict spaceship that has mysteries aboard that we absolutely should on Earth, We actually absolutely should get in there and get some of that right.

But I guess for now we're just going to focus on this original sonar image that was released to the media back in the summer of twenty eleven by again Ocean X, which is this Swedish treasure hunting and salvage diving operation.

But I guess for now we're just going to focus on this original sonar image that was released to the media back in the summer of twenty eleven by again Ocean X, which is this Swedish treasure hunting and salvage diving operation.

Yeah, the actual image here is definitely in the low information zone, and various critics have pointed this out as a reason that not much can be made out of it, aside from the consensus that we're almost certainly looking at a geologic formation here and not a spaceship, not part of a lost city on the bottom of the ocean, some part of a lot of civilization. Their whole article speculating that as well. And you know, it's it's worth driving home that like these ideas, just as pure ideas, are very exciting, Like who wouldn't want to learn more about a possible alien spaceship on the bottom of the ocean. Who would want to hear more about a lost city that was you know, Atlantis style that was swallowed up by the waves in ancient times, but more likely than anything, this is just geology down there, and if you're into geology, it's pretty exciting. But I guess we have to sort of look at the at the end of the day, perhaps geology doesn't have necessarily as much of an excitement value in the mainstream or certainly in the in the fringe. So if you're if you're given two possibilities, even though one is far more likely, some people are just going to go for the the sexier answer, and of course the answer that confirms or seems to confirm some ideas and aspirations one has for the universe.

Yeah, the actual image here is definitely in the low information zone, and various critics have pointed this out as a reason that not much can be made out of it, aside from the consensus that we're almost certainly looking at a geologic formation here and not a spaceship, not part of a lost city on the bottom of the ocean, some part of a lot of civilization. Their whole article speculating that as well. And you know, it's it's worth driving home that like these ideas, just as pure ideas, are very exciting, Like who wouldn't want to learn more about a possible alien spaceship on the bottom of the ocean. Who would want to hear more about a lost city that was you know, Atlantis style that was swallowed up by the waves in ancient times, but more likely than anything, this is just geology down there, and if you're into geology, it's pretty exciting. But I guess we have to sort of look at the at the end of the day, perhaps geology doesn't have necessarily as much of an excitement value in the mainstream or certainly in the in the fringe. So if you're if you're given two possibilities, even though one is far more likely, some people are just going to go for the the sexier answer, and of course the answer that confirms or seems to confirm some ideas and aspirations one has for the universe.

Interpretations I've come across in addition to saying this is an alien spacecraft. Oh and by the way, I should say, early articles about this from around the time it was first released often like would draw outlines around parts of this sonar image, like asking you to lean into certain shape interpretations, And one of the outlines that was often drawn was essentially the millennium falcon. So they there's a weird kind of space where they can almost like if you're a journalist doing an article and drawing an outline like that, you can be like, oh, it's just funny. You know, it's a funny joke, but also you probably know that you are getting some traffic from like playing into the hand of UFO interpretations.

Interpretations I've come across in addition to saying this is an alien spacecraft. Oh and by the way, I should say, early articles about this from around the time it was first released often like would draw outlines around parts of this sonar image, like asking you to lean into certain shape interpretations, And one of the outlines that was often drawn was essentially the millennium falcon. So they there's a weird kind of space where they can almost like if you're a journalist doing an article and drawing an outline like that, you can be like, oh, it's just funny. You know, it's a funny joke, but also you probably know that you are getting some traffic from like playing into the hand of UFO interpretations.

Yeah, I've also seen some where they're like, okay, these are stairs and then this is you know, pointing out like architectural supposed architectural details on this object. And you know, again, you're you're a lot of people they're seeing this image for the first time. You're giving them all the interpretation, given the full script for interpreting this low res image.

Yeah, I've also seen some where they're like, okay, these are stairs and then this is you know, pointing out like architectural supposed architectural details on this object. And you know, again, you're you're a lot of people they're seeing this image for the first time. You're giving them all the interpretation, given the full script for interpreting this low res image.

Right, But anyway to come back to so, there are a lot of people who say, yeah, this is a crashed alien flying saucer, or crashed alien spacecraft or crashed ancient human spacecraft from lost you know, lost technology from an ancient civilization. There are also people who say it was a monument built by the Atlantean civilization, So they say Atlantis built this, it was like a temple. There are various flavors of secret Nazi interpretations. It's a it's a U boat model we've never seen before, some kind of underwater Nazi bunker.

Right, But anyway to come back to so, there are a lot of people who say, yeah, this is a crashed alien flying saucer, or crashed alien spacecraft or crashed ancient human spacecraft from lost you know, lost technology from an ancient civilization. There are also people who say it was a monument built by the Atlantean civilization, So they say Atlantis built this, it was like a temple. There are various flavors of secret Nazi interpretations. It's a it's a U boat model we've never seen before, some kind of underwater Nazi bunker.

Oh yeah, yeah, obviously there's a great deal of Nazi stuff. Once you get into the paranormal in fringe movements.

Oh yeah, yeah, obviously there's a great deal of Nazi stuff. Once you get into the paranormal in fringe movements.

But what does it actually look like? I mean, if you take away the outlines and everything, what we can see in this image is that it is a kind of roughly sur killer looking texture on the ocean floor that has some parallel lines kind of running across it that, you know, you could well want to interprets as I don't know something they're like grooves or tracks or walkways, but also they could just be like layers of rock.

But what does it actually look like? I mean, if you take away the outlines and everything, what we can see in this image is that it is a kind of roughly sur killer looking texture on the ocean floor that has some parallel lines kind of running across it that, you know, you could well want to interprets as I don't know something they're like grooves or tracks or walkways, but also they could just be like layers of rock.

You know. One of these images you included where it's been traced. It looks kind of like I'm going to I'm gonna throw this out there. It looks kind of like one of the helmets of the giant warriors from Nausacaa the Valley of the Wind like on its side. So perhaps this is a remnant from that time before the Seven Days of Fire.

You know. One of these images you included where it's been traced. It looks kind of like I'm going to I'm gonna throw this out there. It looks kind of like one of the helmets of the giant warriors from Nausacaa the Valley of the Wind like on its side. So perhaps this is a remnant from that time before the Seven Days of Fire.

Oh well, we certainly wouldn't want to awake it then, but meddlesome men and their war machines they want to anyway. So other claims about this image, So they say the people who discovered it say that the disc part of the object is roughly sixty meters wide or about two hundred feet wide in diameter. It was found on the ocean floor at a depth of about ninety meters or three hundred feet. Okay, so actually not that deep when it comes to ocean or seafloor. And again this is in the Gulf of Bothnia, which is the northern part of the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Finland. Peter Lindberg, one of the explorers behind the original image, claimed that the object was perfectly round, and there is a sort of light colored area on the seafloor extending away from the disc shaped object that people say could be a runway or a streak cut in the seafloor from a crash landing. And then the next thing, this one starts being a real red flag for me. At some point, ocean X started saying that they tried to return to the object and get more information about it and imagery of it, and they said that proximity to the object was causing all of their electronic equipment to function, and they couldn't come within I think they said two hundred meters of the object without all of their electronics failing. Hmm. I'm a little doubtful of that kind of story.

Oh well, we certainly wouldn't want to awake it then, but meddlesome men and their war machines they want to anyway. So other claims about this image, So they say the people who discovered it say that the disc part of the object is roughly sixty meters wide or about two hundred feet wide in diameter. It was found on the ocean floor at a depth of about ninety meters or three hundred feet. Okay, so actually not that deep when it comes to ocean or seafloor. And again this is in the Gulf of Bothnia, which is the northern part of the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Finland. Peter Lindberg, one of the explorers behind the original image, claimed that the object was perfectly round, and there is a sort of light colored area on the seafloor extending away from the disc shaped object that people say could be a runway or a streak cut in the seafloor from a crash landing. And then the next thing, this one starts being a real red flag for me. At some point, ocean X started saying that they tried to return to the object and get more information about it and imagery of it, and they said that proximity to the object was causing all of their electronic equipment to function, and they couldn't come within I think they said two hundred meters of the object without all of their electronics failing. Hmm. I'm a little doubtful of that kind of story.

You know, given that this is near Finland. I would be shocked if no one has suggested that it might be the lost Sampo, which of course is this object from Finnish mythology that was essentially like it brought riches and good fortune and treasures. It was this font of wealth, and if memory serves like the myth is that it was lost at sea during a battle. So I don't know, it sounds like it could be the Sampo. If I'm going to lean into mythology for my.

You know, given that this is near Finland. I would be shocked if no one has suggested that it might be the lost Sampo, which of course is this object from Finnish mythology that was essentially like it brought riches and good fortune and treasures. It was this font of wealth, and if memory serves like the myth is that it was lost at sea during a battle. So I don't know, it sounds like it could be the Sampo. If I'm going to lean into mythology for my.

Interpretations, do they say what the Sampo looks like.

Interpretations, do they say what the Sampo looks like.

I've seen some illustrations where it is actually kind of kind of round, Yeah, but I think maybe smaller. I don't know.

I've seen some illustrations where it is actually kind of kind of round, Yeah, but I think maybe smaller. I don't know.

Okay, Wiki at least mentions a bunch of different ways it's been depicted, and they are wide ranging, so I would guess in the original they don't say the shape it takes, but it says here it could be anything from a world pillar to a compass or astrolabe, or a bunch of other things, a coin, dye, a shield. So why not a giant disc at the bottom of the ocean.

Okay, Wiki at least mentions a bunch of different ways it's been depicted, and they are wide ranging, so I would guess in the original they don't say the shape it takes, but it says here it could be anything from a world pillar to a compass or astrolabe, or a bunch of other things, a coin, dye, a shield. So why not a giant disc at the bottom of the ocean.

Now.

Now.

One of the reasons that people say this must be a spaceship or some other piece of out of place technology is I think, essentially an intuitive reaction to certain patterns of geometry. When you look at this sonar image, it appears to be a large circular disc. In some versions, the circular disc appears to be made out of smaller rectangles or squares, and a circle filled in with rectangles or squares. That doesn't sound like any natural object I've ever seen, so it just looks like it could not be natural. It had to be made. Now regarding the square tile or rectangular tiles appearance in this particular sonar image, the one we've been looking at here, there are different versions of it you can find on the Internet. But even the fact that it appears to be made of the rectangular blocks or tiles, I think is actually somewhat influenced by the fact that the image has some sort of digital artifact lines running parallel from top to bottom across the image. And these parallel bars crossing the image are not just on the object, but they're covering the whole bitmap, and thus they are obviously a byproduct of the imaging process, not a reflection of the object itself. The image is also lined up so that these parallel lines are exactly perpendicular to some ridges or lines that seem to actually be on the object whatever it is, that seem to sort of run parallel across it. So I think these digital imaging artifacts create a false impression of a kind of right angled brickwork pattern that is not actually present on the object itself. That's just a byproduct of the way the image looks with these lines running up and down on it. On the images we see. Second thing is, Rob, you already mentioned this, but the illustrations. This is another case, just like we talked about last time, of what was originally a low resolution or low information piece of evidence being subject to mythologizing in grandiose elaborations in artworks. So if you Google image search this object, results containing the actual sonar image will be vastly outnumbered by full on fictional illustrations. I've included a few for you to look at here, Rob, Folks at home, you can look them up yourself, just type in Baltic Sea anomaly. To be clear, these are not photos of the actual object. They are imaginative artworks. All of the interesting and provocative sharp detail shown in them is made up. But articles and videos about the object seem to use things like this. Nonetheless, it's kind of like, look, here's one way of imagining what this could look like up close if you could see it sharply. And for some people this seems to suggest it's legitimate to assume that's the way it actually is.

One of the reasons that people say this must be a spaceship or some other piece of out of place technology is I think, essentially an intuitive reaction to certain patterns of geometry. When you look at this sonar image, it appears to be a large circular disc. In some versions, the circular disc appears to be made out of smaller rectangles or squares, and a circle filled in with rectangles or squares. That doesn't sound like any natural object I've ever seen, so it just looks like it could not be natural. It had to be made. Now regarding the square tile or rectangular tiles appearance in this particular sonar image, the one we've been looking at here, there are different versions of it you can find on the Internet. But even the fact that it appears to be made of the rectangular blocks or tiles, I think is actually somewhat influenced by the fact that the image has some sort of digital artifact lines running parallel from top to bottom across the image. And these parallel bars crossing the image are not just on the object, but they're covering the whole bitmap, and thus they are obviously a byproduct of the imaging process, not a reflection of the object itself. The image is also lined up so that these parallel lines are exactly perpendicular to some ridges or lines that seem to actually be on the object whatever it is, that seem to sort of run parallel across it. So I think these digital imaging artifacts create a false impression of a kind of right angled brickwork pattern that is not actually present on the object itself. That's just a byproduct of the way the image looks with these lines running up and down on it. On the images we see. Second thing is, Rob, you already mentioned this, but the illustrations. This is another case, just like we talked about last time, of what was originally a low resolution or low information piece of evidence being subject to mythologizing in grandiose elaborations in artworks. So if you Google image search this object, results containing the actual sonar image will be vastly outnumbered by full on fictional illustrations. I've included a few for you to look at here, Rob, Folks at home, you can look them up yourself, just type in Baltic Sea anomaly. To be clear, these are not photos of the actual object. They are imaginative artworks. All of the interesting and provocative sharp detail shown in them is made up. But articles and videos about the object seem to use things like this. Nonetheless, it's kind of like, look, here's one way of imagining what this could look like up close if you could see it sharply. And for some people this seems to suggest it's legitimate to assume that's the way it actually is.

Yeah, and be clear, this can also take place at kind of a subliminal consumer level where you just you pull up a bunch of images of this thing, and yeah, most of the ones on your page are going to be perhaps leaning into some sort of fantastic illustration, and the illustrations are cool, Like you can't help but look at this and feel a certain kind of way.

Yeah, and be clear, this can also take place at kind of a subliminal consumer level where you just you pull up a bunch of images of this thing, and yeah, most of the ones on your page are going to be perhaps leaning into some sort of fantastic illustration, and the illustrations are cool, Like you can't help but look at this and feel a certain kind of way.

Yeah, don't want to knock the artists, but I mean just like to emphasize these are not images of a thing in the world. These are essentially fictional artworks that are based on a grainy, indistinct original image.

Yeah, don't want to knock the artists, but I mean just like to emphasize these are not images of a thing in the world. These are essentially fictional artworks that are based on a grainy, indistinct original image.

Now I want to throw out another wild speculation. What if this is a tetromino or a tetris block, And really, instead of trying to get down there to it, what we need to do is construct a tetromino to interlock with it and drop it down and make sure that we have lined it up appropriately so that it will fill in the space next to it.

Now I want to throw out another wild speculation. What if this is a tetromino or a tetris block, And really, instead of trying to get down there to it, what we need to do is construct a tetromino to interlock with it and drop it down and make sure that we have lined it up appropriately so that it will fill in the space next to it.

Well, that's a great point, but it would have to be a kind of hybrid game piece because it like one half of it seems to be a tetronomo. It's got the blocky parts that seem like they could interlock, and then the other half is rounded like a connect four piece. So maybe it is for a hybrid type game something we haven't seen yet.

Well, that's a great point, but it would have to be a kind of hybrid game piece because it like one half of it seems to be a tetronomo. It's got the blocky parts that seem like they could interlock, and then the other half is rounded like a connect four piece. So maybe it is for a hybrid type game something we haven't seen yet.

I mean, this does touch on the rea. It's like it's not square enough. It's not it doesn't have enough right angles that it really shouts unnatural object as loudly as some would perhaps insist that it does. It's also not round enough, it doesn't have the end. Would not in either case necessarily mean that it is not of this world, but certainly like those are the sorts of shapes one would want to see in their spaceship. You would want to see a more perfect circle, You would want to see a lot of angles that we usually don't think of as occurring naturally in nature.

I mean, this does touch on the rea. It's like it's not square enough. It's not it doesn't have enough right angles that it really shouts unnatural object as loudly as some would perhaps insist that it does. It's also not round enough, it doesn't have the end. Would not in either case necessarily mean that it is not of this world, but certainly like those are the sorts of shapes one would want to see in their spaceship. You would want to see a more perfect circle, You would want to see a lot of angles that we usually don't think of as occurring naturally in nature.

We will come back to in a minute commentary on this Sonari image itself and what kind of conclusions we should draw from it. But let's say that this did actually depict an object to the bottom of the ocean that had that looked like it had sort of some blocks or some rectangular bricks in it. In the spirit of the previous episodes, let's talk about sponges that look like technology. I think it's time for it. Let's talk about natural rock formations that look like architecture. There are lots of them. You can just google lists of things that are natural geologic formations that look like things made by humans or made by intelligence, maybe alien intelligence. So I wanted to just focus on one example because I thought the images were so striking. Let's look at what is called tessellated pavement. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that's what this is an image of. I'm just citing this as an example of things that are natural geologic formations that totally look like they could not be that they must have been made by intelligence. Rob, you can have a look at the photos I included for you. How would you describe these?

We will come back to in a minute commentary on this Sonari image itself and what kind of conclusions we should draw from it. But let's say that this did actually depict an object to the bottom of the ocean that had that looked like it had sort of some blocks or some rectangular bricks in it. In the spirit of the previous episodes, let's talk about sponges that look like technology. I think it's time for it. Let's talk about natural rock formations that look like architecture. There are lots of them. You can just google lists of things that are natural geologic formations that look like things made by humans or made by intelligence, maybe alien intelligence. So I wanted to just focus on one example because I thought the images were so striking. Let's look at what is called tessellated pavement. Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that's what this is an image of. I'm just citing this as an example of things that are natural geologic formations that totally look like they could not be that they must have been made by intelligence. Rob, you can have a look at the photos I included for you. How would you describe these?

So one of these images, the one with the sunset over it, This is one of my favorite images. I used to have this on my computer, as was one of my desktop wall papers. It's just so splendid. To look at, and it does. It looks kind of otherworldly. It has a psychedelic feel to it. It just makes you feel nice. A couple of the other images of this sort of thing maybe let feel less surreal, less visionary, and more like, oh, this was once a shopping mall of some sort, Like clearly some sort of structure was built here and it's gone. So I don't know, shopping malls of the gods.

So one of these images, the one with the sunset over it, This is one of my favorite images. I used to have this on my computer, as was one of my desktop wall papers. It's just so splendid. To look at, and it does. It looks kind of otherworldly. It has a psychedelic feel to it. It just makes you feel nice. A couple of the other images of this sort of thing maybe let feel less surreal, less visionary, and more like, oh, this was once a shopping mall of some sort, Like clearly some sort of structure was built here and it's gone. So I don't know, shopping malls of the gods.

Okay, but you're saying shopping mall because it's got rectangular paving stones right where you're looking at, like a flat expanse of rock that reaches out into the surf so you can see the ocean beyond, and then all across the surface of this rock there are just rectangular tiles basically.

Okay, but you're saying shopping mall because it's got rectangular paving stones right where you're looking at, like a flat expanse of rock that reaches out into the surf so you can see the ocean beyond, and then all across the surface of this rock there are just rectangular tiles basically.

Yeah, rectangular tiles, rectangular spaces, and you get this sense like if you've ever seen a large building like a you know, a storage facility, factory or a mall, and it's been torn down, like and the junk has been cleared away and you're just left with the with the base, it often looks something like this, you know, where you can see where rooms used to be, you can see bits of tiling, et cetera. So yeah, it it's whispers some sort of human origin when you look at it, if you again, if you don't have the proper context and the proper expertise.

Yeah, rectangular tiles, rectangular spaces, and you get this sense like if you've ever seen a large building like a you know, a storage facility, factory or a mall, and it's been torn down, like and the junk has been cleared away and you're just left with the with the base, it often looks something like this, you know, where you can see where rooms used to be, you can see bits of tiling, et cetera. So yeah, it it's whispers some sort of human origin when you look at it, if you again, if you don't have the proper context and the proper expertise.

So all of these photos that you're looking at here rob are of the same rock formation which can be found on an isthmus in the Australian state of Tasmania. The isthmus is called the Eagle Hawk Neck and it's on the southeast of Tasmania, connecting the mainland to the Tasman Peninsula. I mentioned that these formations are known as tessellated pavements. Tesselated as a synonym for tiled, so it means the practice of covering a surface with tightly locking tiles. And it's called this because, of course it looks like a tiled floor or a pavement made by human hands. Now, how on Earth could natural processes ever produce something that looks like this? Well, I found a passage in an academic book that discusses this very thing. So the book's called The Coastlines of the World with Google Earth Understanding Our Environment by Scheffers, Scheffers and Keletot, published by Springer twenty twelve. The authors say that these formations are rare, and they seem to only occur in sedimentary rock platforms located in the intertidal zone. Intertitle means that the rocks are covered by seawater at high tide and then uncovered at low tide, so they can go through patterns of wedding with seawater and then drying out. And they also tend to occur only in low energy coasts, meaning coasts without very strong wave action. So the authors write that these tesselated patterns in Tasmania in particular, began millions of years ago when fractures formed in siltstone due to stress in the Earth's crust sometime between like sixty million and one hundred and sixty million years ago. In geology, these cracks that form in large bodies of rock are known as joints, and they're found in all kinds of rock, most often appearing as patterns of crack that extend all the way through this big body of rock, and sometimes, for a variety of reasons, these patterns can be parallel or otherwise surprisingly regular and symmetrical. Another striking pattern of jointing in large bodies of rock that might look unnatural to some is hexagonal jointing. If you've ever seen columns of basalt that have hexagonal shapes, that that's another type of strange jointing that doesn't look like that could happen in nature, but it does. That's caused by just patterns of how certain types of rock cool and then crack as they cool. In the case of the tessellated pavements, here you get kind of rectangular patterns of cracks. And in the time since the jointing occurred in this rock, the cracked sedimentary rock has been exposed to the surface and the tides which have caused it to erode in a way that accentuated the rectangular grade of cracks in what's known as pan and loaf formation. So the basic difference here is that some of these rectangles seem to be sort of raised at the outline and then depressed in the middle where they can hold pools of water in them, and then other ones seem to be kind of raised in the middle and depressed at the outline, so in the middle they sort of puff up like a maybe like a cobble stone or like the top of a loaf of bread rising over the pan. The author's right that at areas farther away from the contact with the water, the pavement spends a longer time drying out during low tide, which gives more opportunity for salt crystals to form on top of the rock, and the salt crystals erode the rock surface, and the erosion happens faster inside the pan than it does in the cracks around the pan, you know, forming the rim. So you end up with this depressed pan appearance where it can hold pools of water. Meanwhile, the loaf formation are closer to the water, there's less drying in between tides, less salt crystal, less salt crystallization, and more erosion just due to water flowing in the cracks in between the rectangles and like sand and abrasion eroding those. So you end up getting this raised, puffed bread like kind of appearance. Rob, I've got another image for you to look at that is more of the loaf formation down below here. This is the one in black and white, and man, these really really do look like human made bricks. But it's a natural formation.

So all of these photos that you're looking at here rob are of the same rock formation which can be found on an isthmus in the Australian state of Tasmania. The isthmus is called the Eagle Hawk Neck and it's on the southeast of Tasmania, connecting the mainland to the Tasman Peninsula. I mentioned that these formations are known as tessellated pavements. Tesselated as a synonym for tiled, so it means the practice of covering a surface with tightly locking tiles. And it's called this because, of course it looks like a tiled floor or a pavement made by human hands. Now, how on Earth could natural processes ever produce something that looks like this? Well, I found a passage in an academic book that discusses this very thing. So the book's called The Coastlines of the World with Google Earth Understanding Our Environment by Scheffers, Scheffers and Keletot, published by Springer twenty twelve. The authors say that these formations are rare, and they seem to only occur in sedimentary rock platforms located in the intertidal zone. Intertitle means that the rocks are covered by seawater at high tide and then uncovered at low tide, so they can go through patterns of wedding with seawater and then drying out. And they also tend to occur only in low energy coasts, meaning coasts without very strong wave action. So the authors write that these tesselated patterns in Tasmania in particular, began millions of years ago when fractures formed in siltstone due to stress in the Earth's crust sometime between like sixty million and one hundred and sixty million years ago. In geology, these cracks that form in large bodies of rock are known as joints, and they're found in all kinds of rock, most often appearing as patterns of crack that extend all the way through this big body of rock, and sometimes, for a variety of reasons, these patterns can be parallel or otherwise surprisingly regular and symmetrical. Another striking pattern of jointing in large bodies of rock that might look unnatural to some is hexagonal jointing. If you've ever seen columns of basalt that have hexagonal shapes, that that's another type of strange jointing that doesn't look like that could happen in nature, but it does. That's caused by just patterns of how certain types of rock cool and then crack as they cool. In the case of the tessellated pavements, here you get kind of rectangular patterns of cracks. And in the time since the jointing occurred in this rock, the cracked sedimentary rock has been exposed to the surface and the tides which have caused it to erode in a way that accentuated the rectangular grade of cracks in what's known as pan and loaf formation. So the basic difference here is that some of these rectangles seem to be sort of raised at the outline and then depressed in the middle where they can hold pools of water in them, and then other ones seem to be kind of raised in the middle and depressed at the outline, so in the middle they sort of puff up like a maybe like a cobble stone or like the top of a loaf of bread rising over the pan. The author's right that at areas farther away from the contact with the water, the pavement spends a longer time drying out during low tide, which gives more opportunity for salt crystals to form on top of the rock, and the salt crystals erode the rock surface, and the erosion happens faster inside the pan than it does in the cracks around the pan, you know, forming the rim. So you end up with this depressed pan appearance where it can hold pools of water. Meanwhile, the loaf formation are closer to the water, there's less drying in between tides, less salt crystal, less salt crystallization, and more erosion just due to water flowing in the cracks in between the rectangles and like sand and abrasion eroding those. So you end up getting this raised, puffed bread like kind of appearance. Rob, I've got another image for you to look at that is more of the loaf formation down below here. This is the one in black and white, and man, these really really do look like human made bricks. But it's a natural formation.

Yeah yeah, I mean, if you just glanced at it, even if you I don't know, I guess if you looked at it long enough, you might wonder why the bricks are not of uniform size, but certainly it's smacks of masonry. It smacks of brickwork.

Yeah yeah, I mean, if you just glanced at it, even if you I don't know, I guess if you looked at it long enough, you might wonder why the bricks are not of uniform size, but certainly it's smacks of masonry. It smacks of brickwork.

So that's just one example, but I hope that should be a convincing illustration yet again that we should not always trust our intuitions about what looks natural and what looks intelligently designed. We are presented with example after example of things that look like they must be technology, or they must be architecture, they must have been built by intention and intelligence, but are actually just totally, uncontroversially a result of biological evolution or geological and hydrological processes, just things that happen in nature without any human intervention or alien intervention. So my point there is that without the relevant expertise since a marine biology or geology or whatever it is, it's easy to sort something into the unexplainable column, when in fact it's just like totally looks like something that is well known if you happen to know about certain things.

So that's just one example, but I hope that should be a convincing illustration yet again that we should not always trust our intuitions about what looks natural and what looks intelligently designed. We are presented with example after example of things that look like they must be technology, or they must be architecture, they must have been built by intention and intelligence, but are actually just totally, uncontroversially a result of biological evolution or geological and hydrological processes, just things that happen in nature without any human intervention or alien intervention. So my point there is that without the relevant expertise since a marine biology or geology or whatever it is, it's easy to sort something into the unexplainable column, when in fact it's just like totally looks like something that is well known if you happen to know about certain things.

Right.

Right.

But to come back to the sonar image from the Baltic Sea, the Baltic Sea nomaly, which again some are quick to label an anomaly in need of explanation based in Aliens or Atlantis or secret Nazi technology. Again, all of this speculation is only possible because we're operating in the zone of low resolution. One problem here is that you and I and most people looking at this image lack context. We don't know much about the Baltic Sea floor. We also don't know anything about how sonar images are produced. Is it possible that we could get a higher information perspective by asking somebody who knows about those things? So I came across an article published in February twenty twelve in Popular Mechanics called Underwater UFO Get Real Experts Say, by Douglas Main. And this article consulted several experts for perspective on this sonar image. One was Hanumant Singh, who was at the time a researcher with the Woods Hull Oceanographic Institute. I think now he's a professor at Northeastern University who has a number of research focuses I found, including robotics and things in that domain, but also quote imaging in visually degraded environments, including underwater and in polar regions.

But to come back to the sonar image from the Baltic Sea, the Baltic Sea nomaly, which again some are quick to label an anomaly in need of explanation based in Aliens or Atlantis or secret Nazi technology. Again, all of this speculation is only possible because we're operating in the zone of low resolution. One problem here is that you and I and most people looking at this image lack context. We don't know much about the Baltic Sea floor. We also don't know anything about how sonar images are produced. Is it possible that we could get a higher information perspective by asking somebody who knows about those things? So I came across an article published in February twenty twelve in Popular Mechanics called Underwater UFO Get Real Experts Say, by Douglas Main. And this article consulted several experts for perspective on this sonar image. One was Hanumant Singh, who was at the time a researcher with the Woods Hull Oceanographic Institute. I think now he's a professor at Northeastern University who has a number of research focuses I found, including robotics and things in that domain, but also quote imaging in visually degraded environments, including underwater and in polar regions.

Oh that's perfect.

Oh that's perfect.

So what did Singh have to say? About the anomaly well. He cautioned that we should not put too much trust in the sonar image itself for a number of reasons. He says it was created using a type of sonar technology called side scan sonar, which is perfectly useful for locating large objects like sunken ships, but could potentially introduce false details into an image if it's not functioning correctly, and he cited several indications in the image itself that the sonar should not be trusted. He said that there are signs of cross talk between the two different instruments that are used to create the image. He says one channel is electrically contaminating the other, and this results in parts of the image on one side being mirrored and reflected on to the other side of the map. He also says that the black parallel lines in the image I already mentioned these earlier just because I didn't have any expertise, but I just noticed that these create the false impression that the disc is more made of rectangular blocks than it probably actually is. He said that these black parallel lines in the image showed that there are places where the sonar is dropping out, so that's an image quality problem. He also says that the edges of the image have lost detail, also showing that the sonar is not calibrated properly. This article also consulted someone named Charles Paul, who is a senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, who said that even if the sonar image is roughly is a roughly accurate picture of what's down there, there's no reason to think it's a spaceship. It could be, first of all, a roughly circular rock outcropping. No reason that's implausible, or he says quote the result of fluid or gas venting. Such venting causes inexplicable and poorly understood structures like pock marks circular depressions that Paul has seen are all around the world. In one area off California alone, he says he has mapped more than fourteen hundred such pock marks. So gas venting from the seafloor can cause unusual formations. That's something you wouldn't know if you weren't familiar with looking at the seafloor. Another possible explanation, which I thought was very interesting, Remember how this thing is actually not all that deep. It's only about three hundred feet down, and because it's not all that deep, Paul says it could be a pattern created by a fishing troll.

So what did Singh have to say? About the anomaly well. He cautioned that we should not put too much trust in the sonar image itself for a number of reasons. He says it was created using a type of sonar technology called side scan sonar, which is perfectly useful for locating large objects like sunken ships, but could potentially introduce false details into an image if it's not functioning correctly, and he cited several indications in the image itself that the sonar should not be trusted. He said that there are signs of cross talk between the two different instruments that are used to create the image. He says one channel is electrically contaminating the other, and this results in parts of the image on one side being mirrored and reflected on to the other side of the map. He also says that the black parallel lines in the image I already mentioned these earlier just because I didn't have any expertise, but I just noticed that these create the false impression that the disc is more made of rectangular blocks than it probably actually is. He said that these black parallel lines in the image showed that there are places where the sonar is dropping out, so that's an image quality problem. He also says that the edges of the image have lost detail, also showing that the sonar is not calibrated properly. This article also consulted someone named Charles Paul, who is a senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, who said that even if the sonar image is roughly is a roughly accurate picture of what's down there, there's no reason to think it's a spaceship. It could be, first of all, a roughly circular rock outcropping. No reason that's implausible, or he says quote the result of fluid or gas venting. Such venting causes inexplicable and poorly understood structures like pock marks circular depressions that Paul has seen are all around the world. In one area off California alone, he says he has mapped more than fourteen hundred such pock marks. So gas venting from the seafloor can cause unusual formations. That's something you wouldn't know if you weren't familiar with looking at the seafloor. Another possible explanation, which I thought was very interesting, Remember how this thing is actually not all that deep. It's only about three hundred feet down, and because it's not all that deep, Paul says it could be a pattern created by a fishing troll.

Quote.

Quote.

For example, Paul says the jaws or opening of a troll could easily have struck the bottom elsewhere and dropped a disk like mound of sediment or a trail of pebbles that make up the track marks, he says. Another option mentioned in this article, Hana mont Singh, even said that the original image could have been produced by fish. He describes how the use of side scans sonar can produce all sorts of confusing images and often has to be double checked by passing back again from another angle to really figure out what it was you saw on the first pass. Now I wanted to mention one more article from twenty twelve that addresses this and interviews a irrelevant expert who had access to some materials that may have been from the object. This article is by the science writer Natalie Wolkover. It's from August thirtieth, twenty twelve, called Mysterious Baltic Sea object is a glacial deposit, so this article was written after the head of this or one of the heads of this Ocean X group. Peter Lindberg was in the media again and had been making statements, I think on a radio program about the nature of the seafloor object being very mysterious and unsolved and baffling to scientists. He claimed it had stare formations that may have been constructed, and it seemed to be being kind of ambiguous, but saying things like if this is Atlantis, that would be amazing. Now. Apparently the explorers who discovered this sonar image at one point gave some rock samples to a researcher in Sweden named Vulkar Brukert, who is an associate professor of geology at Stockholm University. Gave him some rocks for analysis. These rocks I couldn't find a lot about exactly how they were sourced, but they allegedly came from the object, so I guess they're claiming to have collected them on a dive. Brukert was then quoted in a Swedish tabloid in a way that ambiguously suggested he might be like it's kind of an ambiguous quote. He says, you know, oh, it's surprising to find this black rock here, and the ambiguity suggests he might be signing on to the idea that this object is actually quite mysterious and unexplainable by science. But when other journalists followed up with him, this same scholar was not of that opinion at all, that it was like a baffling unexplainable thing. He said that the rocks they gave him, whether they came from the object or not, were mostly just ordinary seafloor rocks, with one exception, which was a piece of basaltic rock, which is made out of hardened lava and not normally the kind of rock you'd find all over the floor of the Baltic Sea. But it's still not all that baffling because rocks get moved around, and in this case, it's very likely this kind of rock could have been left at the bottom of the Baltic Sea by a glacier, Brookert says in a statement given for this article. Quote because the whole northern Baltic region is so heavily influenced by glacial thawing processes, both the feature and the rock samples are likely to have formed in connection with glacial and post glacial processes. He wrote, possibly these rocks were transported there by glaciers. So this is another fascinating thing about nature. You know, nature is very weird. Glaciers can get rock stuck in them. They pick up a rock from one place, carry that rock to another place as the glaciers move. Then when the glacier melts, it drops the rock, and this leaves behind rocks that are called glacial erratics, rocks that are out of place because a glacier carried them to the place where they now rest.

For example, Paul says the jaws or opening of a troll could easily have struck the bottom elsewhere and dropped a disk like mound of sediment or a trail of pebbles that make up the track marks, he says. Another option mentioned in this article, Hana mont Singh, even said that the original image could have been produced by fish. He describes how the use of side scans sonar can produce all sorts of confusing images and often has to be double checked by passing back again from another angle to really figure out what it was you saw on the first pass. Now I wanted to mention one more article from twenty twelve that addresses this and interviews a irrelevant expert who had access to some materials that may have been from the object. This article is by the science writer Natalie Wolkover. It's from August thirtieth, twenty twelve, called Mysterious Baltic Sea object is a glacial deposit, so this article was written after the head of this or one of the heads of this Ocean X group. Peter Lindberg was in the media again and had been making statements, I think on a radio program about the nature of the seafloor object being very mysterious and unsolved and baffling to scientists. He claimed it had stare formations that may have been constructed, and it seemed to be being kind of ambiguous, but saying things like if this is Atlantis, that would be amazing. Now. Apparently the explorers who discovered this sonar image at one point gave some rock samples to a researcher in Sweden named Vulkar Brukert, who is an associate professor of geology at Stockholm University. Gave him some rocks for analysis. These rocks I couldn't find a lot about exactly how they were sourced, but they allegedly came from the object, so I guess they're claiming to have collected them on a dive. Brukert was then quoted in a Swedish tabloid in a way that ambiguously suggested he might be like it's kind of an ambiguous quote. He says, you know, oh, it's surprising to find this black rock here, and the ambiguity suggests he might be signing on to the idea that this object is actually quite mysterious and unexplainable by science. But when other journalists followed up with him, this same scholar was not of that opinion at all, that it was like a baffling unexplainable thing. He said that the rocks they gave him, whether they came from the object or not, were mostly just ordinary seafloor rocks, with one exception, which was a piece of basaltic rock, which is made out of hardened lava and not normally the kind of rock you'd find all over the floor of the Baltic Sea. But it's still not all that baffling because rocks get moved around, and in this case, it's very likely this kind of rock could have been left at the bottom of the Baltic Sea by a glacier, Brookert says in a statement given for this article. Quote because the whole northern Baltic region is so heavily influenced by glacial thawing processes, both the feature and the rock samples are likely to have formed in connection with glacial and post glacial processes. He wrote, possibly these rocks were transported there by glaciers. So this is another fascinating thing about nature. You know, nature is very weird. Glaciers can get rock stuck in them. They pick up a rock from one place, carry that rock to another place as the glaciers move. Then when the glacier melts, it drops the rock, and this leaves behind rocks that are called glacial erratics, rocks that are out of place because a glacier carried them to the place where they now rest.

Now, this is obviously a slow process compared to the imagined fast process of alien spaceship settling down from the bud the bottom of the sea.

Now, this is obviously a slow process compared to the imagined fast process of alien spaceship settling down from the bud the bottom of the sea.

Right, So I would say, based on everything I've read about this, we don't really know what the object in this sonar image is. But this one geologist suggests that the best guess is that it's some sort of rock formation left over by the freezing and thawing of glaciers from the last glacial maximum, from the last peak of the ice age. So I don't think I would sort this one exactly like the Eltannan and antenna, where in that case I would say it's, you know, ninety nine point nine percent certain we know exactly what that image is of you have the right context, you can identify it. In this case, it seems like there's a little more wiggle room. It's like, this is a grainy image. We don't know what it was exactly, And there are some good candidates, but there's not really enough information to zero in on one and be certain and looking for more recent sources on this good lord, there are some, but they are mostly hosted on like tabloid sites that felt like they were just made of high density malware. They would make numerous unbelievable sounding claims, like repeating the stuff about how like all of the electronics malfunctioned when they tried to get near the object again, and they would lean heavily on images that appeared to be fake without clarifying where the images came from, which I find very annoying. Also, they don't appear to like I'm fine with using like fake illustrations if it's clearly labeled like this is not the object, this is an you know, an artist's imagination. But also like they don't appear to add much of anything new except additional wild claims from the Internet. For example, vague claims I read on some article with no sourcing that the object contains metals not possible to produce on Earth, So I just I don't know if that's worth addressing. But as far as I can tell, this is sort of peak low information zone, right. It's an indistinct and grainy but weird looking original photo produced with a fragile imaging system that is well known to spit out all kinds of errors and artifacts, and it is presented to the media in a way that encourages interesting unusual explanations, like, you know, for example, just drawing the spaceship outline around it is kind of like, hey, you know, maybe think about it as a spaceship, or saying that it might be constructed as if, you know, by an ancient civilization or something, and then coming up with a story about why you can't produce more high quality images, electrical equipment, malfunctions in the vicinity, et cetera. So I don't know. I checked in, and it seems like the explorers are they had at some point been working on a documentary about this, and we're claiming that there would be more to come about it. But I would say, I don't know. For now, this is it's stuck in that low resolution, low information area, and if we were to get better information on it, I strongly suspect it would turn out to be just a kind of interestingly shaped rock.

Right, So I would say, based on everything I've read about this, we don't really know what the object in this sonar image is. But this one geologist suggests that the best guess is that it's some sort of rock formation left over by the freezing and thawing of glaciers from the last glacial maximum, from the last peak of the ice age. So I don't think I would sort this one exactly like the Eltannan and antenna, where in that case I would say it's, you know, ninety nine point nine percent certain we know exactly what that image is of you have the right context, you can identify it. In this case, it seems like there's a little more wiggle room. It's like, this is a grainy image. We don't know what it was exactly, And there are some good candidates, but there's not really enough information to zero in on one and be certain and looking for more recent sources on this good lord, there are some, but they are mostly hosted on like tabloid sites that felt like they were just made of high density malware. They would make numerous unbelievable sounding claims, like repeating the stuff about how like all of the electronics malfunctioned when they tried to get near the object again, and they would lean heavily on images that appeared to be fake without clarifying where the images came from, which I find very annoying. Also, they don't appear to like I'm fine with using like fake illustrations if it's clearly labeled like this is not the object, this is an you know, an artist's imagination. But also like they don't appear to add much of anything new except additional wild claims from the Internet. For example, vague claims I read on some article with no sourcing that the object contains metals not possible to produce on Earth, So I just I don't know if that's worth addressing. But as far as I can tell, this is sort of peak low information zone, right. It's an indistinct and grainy but weird looking original photo produced with a fragile imaging system that is well known to spit out all kinds of errors and artifacts, and it is presented to the media in a way that encourages interesting unusual explanations, like, you know, for example, just drawing the spaceship outline around it is kind of like, hey, you know, maybe think about it as a spaceship, or saying that it might be constructed as if, you know, by an ancient civilization or something, and then coming up with a story about why you can't produce more high quality images, electrical equipment, malfunctions in the vicinity, et cetera. So I don't know. I checked in, and it seems like the explorers are they had at some point been working on a documentary about this, and we're claiming that there would be more to come about it. But I would say, I don't know. For now, this is it's stuck in that low resolution, low information area, and if we were to get better information on it, I strongly suspect it would turn out to be just a kind of interestingly shaped rock.

Yeah, it would turn out to be either an interestingly shaped rock or there would be nothing. And in a way, that's the worst answer, right, because you can always just move the goalpost on it. You can say, well, I guess the ship moved also was a functional spaceship, and so the mystery continues in a way that proves what we thought it was. Or hey, if anyone wants to take up my Sampo theory, well, clearly some of the major powers of this world saw that it was the Sampo, and they went and claimed the Sampo, and they are busy getting the Sampo back online somewhere to produce, you know, unlimited riches. But in either case, you know, it's like, like we've been saying, it's it's it's a far simpler exercise to turn to explanations for which we have additional data that we can We can look at other rock formations and say, yes, this is potentially the sort of thing that's happening here. We can look at other glacial situations and say, yeah, this is potentially the model at work here, and we have examples of this model. Whereas when you turn to UFOs, when you turn to the law City of Atlantis or the Sampo, you know, these are not things for which we have any additional reputable data to really throw in to compare it to.

Yeah, it would turn out to be either an interestingly shaped rock or there would be nothing. And in a way, that's the worst answer, right, because you can always just move the goalpost on it. You can say, well, I guess the ship moved also was a functional spaceship, and so the mystery continues in a way that proves what we thought it was. Or hey, if anyone wants to take up my Sampo theory, well, clearly some of the major powers of this world saw that it was the Sampo, and they went and claimed the Sampo, and they are busy getting the Sampo back online somewhere to produce, you know, unlimited riches. But in either case, you know, it's like, like we've been saying, it's it's it's a far simpler exercise to turn to explanations for which we have additional data that we can We can look at other rock formations and say, yes, this is potentially the sort of thing that's happening here. We can look at other glacial situations and say, yeah, this is potentially the model at work here, and we have examples of this model. Whereas when you turn to UFOs, when you turn to the law City of Atlantis or the Sampo, you know, these are not things for which we have any additional reputable data to really throw in to compare it to.

There are no solid examples of those to compare it to. Yeah, exactly, there are a lack of dependable analogies, which, yeah, should should make you hesitate before resorting to that kind of explanation. And then the other thing again is just like when you're in the low resolution zone or the low information zone, it's okay to just reserve judgment, you know, you can, like it's important to acknowledge, like we don't have a lot of information here, so you know, it's you can't really say what this is.

There are no solid examples of those to compare it to. Yeah, exactly, there are a lack of dependable analogies, which, yeah, should should make you hesitate before resorting to that kind of explanation. And then the other thing again is just like when you're in the low resolution zone or the low information zone, it's okay to just reserve judgment, you know, you can, like it's important to acknowledge, like we don't have a lot of information here, so you know, it's you can't really say what this is.

Yeah, more information is required.

Yeah, more information is required.

Oh and I forgot to mention this until now. But also there was an article I found where the divers from Ocean X did release some photos allegedly of the objects, so not sonar, but like camera photographs allegedly taken of the object on a dive. But you can't really see what you're looking at rob I've shared a link to a CBC article with you here that includes one of these photos. And yeah, it just looks like a rock. It's like a like a kind of blurry piece of rock with like the glare of a flashlight shining off of it. So it's not really it doesn't really add any information as far as I can tell.

Oh and I forgot to mention this until now. But also there was an article I found where the divers from Ocean X did release some photos allegedly of the objects, so not sonar, but like camera photographs allegedly taken of the object on a dive. But you can't really see what you're looking at rob I've shared a link to a CBC article with you here that includes one of these photos. And yeah, it just looks like a rock. It's like a like a kind of blurry piece of rock with like the glare of a flashlight shining off of it. So it's not really it doesn't really add any information as far as I can tell.

Hmmm, yeah, I you know, I CBC does great work, and I have no reason to doubt that this is an actual underwater picture. Yet at the same time, the closer I look at it that I get more of a feel that this is like skin Like this really feels like I feel like I see the crease between like thigh and groin taken in a like maybe underwater. I don't know, is that a pimple I see? Yeah, yeah, I mean just it just speaks to the ambiguity of the shot, like it's what is it? It's kind of whatever you want it to be.