Forums

Posted: 27-06-2012 04:07 Post subject:

That's a good point actually, I'd not thought of that.

Posted: 27-06-2012 08:33 Post subject:

Posted: 27-06-2012 11:53 Post subject:

Except right there at the top of the article it says:

Posted: 27-06-2012 12:30 Post subject:

Yes, but it still sounds a bit iffy. If it's just a technical glitch, then why do they make mention of it? It seems like they are making some effort to make it seem odd.

Posted: 27-06-2012 12:43 Post subject:

It's definitely the kind of detail you throw in there if you're trying to suggest flying saucers. True.

Alli

Posted: 27-06-2012 12:58 Post subject:

And there are still no photos of this object.
It's exasperating.

Posted: 27-06-2012 13:53 Post subject:

It's definitely the kind of item one mentions out of desperation to make the mundane appear to have been extraordinary ... Rolling Eyes

The bit about electronic / electrical disruption didn't appear in the original reports of the mid-June dive. It was a follow-on addendum, apparently originating with remarks from Stefan Hogeborn (the professional diver whose visit to the structure was the only one documented and reported to date).

He stated that on his way down to the bottom his light failed. Then the camera started acting up. At a depth of about 50m the camera shut down. He had to stop / wait to deal with it. At around this time a second light or lamp failed. I'm not sure if this second light was a separate 'flashlight' unit or some lamp associated with the camera itself.

He finally got the camera 'restarted', and once on the bottom everything (at least everything relating to the camera itself) seemed to be working for the remainder of the time spent around the object. When they returned to the surface, they found nothing on the tape.

Hogeborn was also the first one (reported as ...) mentioning the satellite phone failing to work when the boat was directly above the main object. His original statement isn't clear as to whether this happened one time versus being a recurrent effect. The bit about the satellite phone working again once the boat had moved some meters away from a point directly over the object entered the narrative later.

The bottom line is that there were multiple equipment-related glitches or failures during the period of the initial (reported) dive. However ...

It is not the case that all their lights / lamps failed (else there'd have been no still images at that depth). The camera was restarted on the way down, and it seemed to (mechanically) function just fine while they were on the bottom. Without any report on the camera's operational condition it's impossible to tell whether the blank tape was (e.g.) recording without result versus not actually recording at all. They never clarified whether the satellite phone service disruption was a one-time event or a repeatable effect.

The lack of context and detail on these matters contrasts with how specific they were about features of the object itself. To be fair, they haven't been consistently clear about the object's features either. The evidence to date represents a jumble of isolated factoids and unclear explanations for what's in the still photos, and they seem content (or constrained ...) to let the audience extrapolate as much as they choose onto it.

Posted: 28-06-2012 20:24 Post subject:

A very interesting image of the object, from above with 90 degrees angles. This is at the top of the object

Update
http://www.oceanexplorer.se/

images
http://www.oceanexplorer.se/images/

Posted: 28-06-2012 22:25 Post subject:

Posted: 29-06-2012 08:34 Post subject:

Posted: 29-06-2012 14:29 Post subject:

Posted: 29-06-2012 21:28 Post subject:

A 'high resolution' sonar image that shows us nothing at all.
How extraordinary.

Posted: 29-06-2012 21:31 Post subject:

Posted: 30-06-2012 01:35 Post subject:

I'm getting frustrated at the manner in which they keep changing explanations for the items they presented after the initial dive.

For example ... After the initial dive the photo of a smooth curving wall (of, apparently, stone ...) was initially presented as an illustration relating to the overall structure of the object - i.e., as if it were illustrating how the lower side of the object met the sea bed.

Now the same photo has been portrayed as illustrating 'The Meringue' - a dome-like protuberance on the top side of the overall object.

Some of the most recent reports (ostensibly reflecting comments from the Ocean X guys) have included comments to the effect that:

- the main 'object' is perched atop a separate pillar or analogous structure below
- the main 'object' is in fact a collection of separate slabs rather than a single striated mass

I don't mind things being ambiguous while we're all awaiting results from the material sample analyses, etc.

However, I do have a problem with them changing the emphases and descriptions of the story's elements as time goes on.

Posted: 30-06-2012 11:04 Post subject:

Is Cloverfield 2 still in production ... ?