Ancient underwater structure discovered?

Post Reply New Topic

If there was a nuclear war now and most of the human population was eliminated and let's say that most of the buildings and such that were built by us were also destroyed from natural disasters, what would become of the rest of the human lot? We have an advanced civilization but it could be lost too.

Not everything that is now believed to be true was once proven to be so. It took some people with imaginations that thought something was possible that drove civilization forward. In other words, imaginative people can serve a useful role in human culture.

^Oh I assure you, that's just the beginning. Behold the other face on mars:

Although I also note that the runway in exhibit A is nearly 5 miles wide. The mind reels at the thought of what Martian technical might must be like.

Incidentally, Google Mars is just pure unmitigated awesome.

Would anyone like to comment on the second site? Certainly does not look like imaging artifacts. Though it could be google "graffiti" I suppose.

Just a mishmash of high and low quality images/terrain.

SPOILER

Dussel wrote:

Who knows what's under the Atlantic Ocean.

Crashed UFOs from the 1600s could be down there.

1. Develop a new hypothesis. A hypothesis is merely an idea that is usually based on passive observations of natural events. An idea does not have to be supported, but if it is not, then it remains only an idea.

2. Search for related data, which may be found in the results of previous research, whether or not the results of the previous research actually support the previous research.

3. If existing data does not support the hypothesis, then return to step 1.

4. Create a supporting theory. A theory attempts to explain the hypothesis in a cause-and-effect manner. Never propose a theory that is not supported by available evidence.

5. Perform experiments to test the theory. Experiments must be appropriate to the proposed theory, and must be both repeatable and verifiable.

6. If the experimental results do not support the theory, then return to step 4.

7. Record findings and submit to peer-review process. A peer group is composed of professional researchers in the field of study that the theory addresses. The peer group will first examine the initial data for factual errors, then the theory for errors of reasoning, and then perform the same experiments under the same conditions to validate or invalidate the theory.

8. If the peer-review process produces conflicting evidence, then return to step 4.

9. At this point, the theory becomes a scientific principle.

10. Publish the results.

1. Form an opinion. This opinion does not have to be founded on anything other than dreams, fantasies, fears, hallucinations, ignorance, imagination, legends, myths, prejudices, speculation, superstitions, suspicions, or wishful thinking.

2. Search for supporting data. If any data conflicts with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting data. If the conflicting facts or opinions can not be adequately discredited, then the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions (the “critic” or “skeptic”) must be discredited.

3. Publish the opinion.

4. If any critic or skeptic comes forward with facts or opinions that conflict with the original opinion then discredit, distort, or ignore the conflicting facts, while simultaneously discrediting the person(s) presenting the conflicting facts or opinions.

5. Expand the original opinion into unrelated fields of interest.

6. Repeat from Step 2.