A team of treasure hunters that discovered a strange underwater structure resembling a crashed alien craft in 2011 encountered a surprise in their latest efforts to study the finding. After sending their remotely-operated vehicles (ROVs) to the object’s location in the Bothnia region of the Baltic sea recently, their onboard compasses had major mechanical failures that hindered operations.
“The compass was living its own life and the tether was snagged all the time,” the exploration team led by Peter Lindberg, Ocean X, said in a statement. “It was very difficult to understand where the ROV were because of the terrible visibility and because of the compass that went berserk.”
Once the team returned to shore to analyze the footage collected, yet another discovery was made. Due to the navigational issues from the compass errors, what appeared to be a collection of stone walls was inadvertently found between the large main object and another object previously detected. “The surface between the ‘walls’ are buried beneath 200mm of sediment but it seem[s] to be hard, straight and smooth,” the team’s reported statement described.
The object itself, dubbed the “Baltic Sea Anomaly” and often compared to Star Wars’ Millennium Falcon, measures hundred of feet across and has numerous features that seem unnatural. Among these are a rounded hole encircled by a square frame, sharply angled edgings, and stair-like formations. However, volcanic rock, gneiss, and granite were found after sample tests were done in prior findings, indicating that geological processes may be culprit for the strange shapes seen by the Ocean X team.
Scientific opinions have been consulted several times over the last eight years since the Baltic Sea Anomaly was found, most of which are posted on a Facebook group dedicated to the apparent object. Overall, natural explanations are favored, citing similar formations in the region. All aspects of the anomaly haven’t been explained yet, though, the equipment malfunctions specifically. The team experienced communications disruptions and equipment failures during prior investigations of the area as well.
The most frustrating part of these stories, in my opinion, is the lack of comparison data available to the general public. Sure, if you dig through the Internet, search for the right terms, and read through the scientific jargon, maybe you can understand the arguments against the unnatural nature of these types of things. In other words, when naysaying scientists say things like “these formations are common” and give a long, technojargon explanation for why the Baltic Sea Anomaly is a geological formation, I don’t see where they’re offering visual examples to support their opinions.
I’m not saying I don’t believe what scientists say about anomalies, just that it’s not helpful to explain them away without turning it into a teachable moment. In the Baltic Sea case for instance, if round structures are common and the sediment edgings are typical for the geological processes scientists reference to explain them, how difficult would it be to include some pictures to compare against what this team has found? Really, it goes against the very term ‘anomaly’ to suggest that they’re exactly the opposite. My layman’s brain can’t understand that if strange UFO (USO?) shaped objects were simply nature at work, why don’t we see them everywhere?
Providing examples of other explainable anomaly instances would go a long way towards assuring people like myself that academia isn’t just poo pooing something that they don’t have any more answers to than anyone else. They may have more hypotheses, more grounded ones at that, with more educated reasoning. But hypotheses are still not answers, and it’s not that unusal for Occam’s Razor to be wrong.
The Ocean X team aren’t amateurs, either. It’s their business to find sunken things that aren’t natural formations, and they have a record of successfully doing just that. They are more than willing to be mistaken, it seems, but there’s antagonism around every corner interfering with their exploration. It really feels like much of the time the bar for science-driven dismissals is very low for topics like aliens and alternative histories. Whether it’s dismissing exoplanet anomalies or explaining common myths across cultures which never came into contact with one another (etc., etc.), the number one rule in scientific disciplines is “nothing is allowed to be weird unless it’s safely weird.”
For what it’s worth, the underwater sonar images of the Baltic Sea Anomaly do look more natural than the initial above-water images to me when compared to other natural formations. Also, I’ve read some theories about the team’s equipment being impacted in the area that still equates to a natural explanation (or the Nazis). However, my point still stands – I had to dig for those things online and it would have been better coming directly from the scientists dismissing the alien craft theories. When I can only understand about 5% of what they’re saying about geology and there’s nothing else offered to compare it to, it feels like I’m being told not to believe my own eyes.