city discovered under the sea

If it's that one that looks like squares then it's already been dismissed when Google Earth team raised the same question with seabed mappers.

It's at least 2 years old.
 
Well other than the poor digital compression of the images the rest just looks like noise from the scanning process (be it sonar or seismic)...

Fail as usual from the Daily Fail...
 
There are cities under the sea off the cost of japan and somewhere off the cost of india,which is apparently twice the size of manhatten,according to graham hancock
 
thevet said:
There are cities under the sea off the cost of japan and somewhere off the cost of india,which is apparently twice the size of manhatten,according to graham hancock
Click to expand...

There are (although it isn't conclusive) however I doubt they are that size. They are also just off the coasts of their respective locations and so I'm guessing a little different to one found in the middle of the Caribbean. Both the Japanese and Indian "cities" can be explained by tectonic activity and a relative rise in sea level as they are only a few tens of metres down, unlike the one in the Daily Fail which is a mile down, no way any natural activity could do that much vertical movement in that space of time.
 
thevet said:
according to graham hancock
Click to expand...

A man who is a journalist by trade, not an archaeologist, historian, or geologist (marine or otherwise). Most people who are geologists believe that the structures concerned are entirely natural. Hancock is a pseudoscientist in best Erich von Daniken mould.


M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom