So called Baltic Sea “UFO” mystery solved, other questions arise


In the summer of 2011, Swedish marine explorers looking for various goods from shipwrecks, which sank in the Baltic Sea a long time ago, came across a peculiar discovery. The Swedish treasure hunters’ sonar revealed an extraordinary image: a formation of objects at the bottom of the sea that bears an uncanny resemblance to Star Wars’ fabled Millennium Falcon.

One year later, Swedish divers set on an expedition and took a closer look at the vestige site. In the depths, the explorers found that the site shaped like an almost perfect 60 meters in diameter circle, which mainstream press outlets were quick to stamp it as a UFO landing site, is actually a circular rock formation.

It was “like small fireplaces” with stones covered in “something resembling soot”, according to the team of underwater researchers who dubbed themselves Ocean X Team.

Scientists are still examining the footage from the expedition, but the whole site appears to be a giant stone, “the kind divers see in keys and harbors” — a peculiar formation, granted, but… just a stone. Well, I guess Han Solo didn’t park his ship there after all.

“It’s not obviously an alien spacecraft. It’s not made of metal,” said  Peter Lindberg, the leader of the Ocean Explorer team. The scientist didn’t miss the opportunity to make a little fun of the situation, though . “Who says they had to use metal?” he joked. “This trip has raised a lot of questions.”


While the whole deal, which was deviously portrayed from the get go by the media, has been freed of its extraterrestrial aura, this expedition raises some intruiguing questions.

For one, the rock isn’t covered at all in silt, which should have typically occurred on the bottom of the sea, Lindberg said. Even more odd for a seemingly natural formation, the main object is disc-shaped and “appears to have construction lines and boxes drawn on it,” Lindberg said. “There are also straight edges.”

Also, “the surface has cracks on it,” said Lindberg. “There is some black material in the cracks, but we don’t know what it is.”

Many samples have been passed on to scientists, and more detailed footage of the site has been promised by the diving expedition. If anything, though, this discovery perfectly illustrates man’s power of fitting patterns together, something that has allowed for one of the world’s greatest scientific discoveries to be made, but which also plunged man in making demented claims.

There’s a thin line between reason and imagination.

via RT.com

78 thoughts on “So called Baltic Sea “UFO” mystery solved, other questions arise

  1. Hayworthme

    Let’s see what the sonar looks like now! After the government has covered it up.

  2. Ddstrang

    What an absurd piece of writing. Out of interest, where in the article was ‘solved’ revealed?

  3. Ben

    How is it solved when they have not finished investigating. And on their last dive to the sight they found what they believe to be a passage way inside. Also their  electric device’s stop working when they get close to it.

  4. Robbieux

    Portraid = Port used in raids or sometimes Raided Port. Not really tasty liquor to be honest. :P

  5. BaldBird

     I think you should look up the definition of solved. See if you can find me the definition of portraid as well.

  6. Kristin

    Why is it these online zones aren’t edited?  Poor spelling and punctuation means—hello, folks!—don’t take it seriously!!

  7. Illegalblaze

    Retarded piece of crap. How is it solved? Shitty journalism. The writer should look for new work.

  8. scarborrough

    This article smacks of agenda. To be able to say it is solved you have to be able to say what it is, not just what you believe it is not.  Here is what I think it could be, based on what little we have been told. It looks to me like an unusual geologic formation from the late ice age that was at one time above water and was the center of attention of early human inhabitants who would climb onto its surface and build fires to be seen from great distances. The “runway”  is actually a river channel that was scoured out by a glacier and the anomaly is a small section that was subsequently sculpted by water flow, giving it its mushroom shaped appearance.  The top layer, which may be of a harder nature, bears cracks and fissures, possibly from the overlying ice pressure, which may have been subsequently modified by early peoples. Nothing I have seen so far supports my preference that it be a crashed UFO or something exciting like that.

  9. Johnrambo1

    If its a natural “anomaly” than show us the pictures. If you won’t then it’s a cover up.

  10. Badcceb

    Haha – this makes me laugh.  It is only a “giant stone”, a natural formation they urge, yet a paragraph or two later state that it has construction lines, straight edges, and “boxes drawn on it”.

  11. ash6222

    Dumb title for the article. Perhaps one day I’ll come across a significant amount of unexplained phenomena and claim that a “mystery” has been solved – what a schmuck.

  12. Poonfooba

    So, are they all done. They’re probably will not be any more real news about this anymore.

  13. cb

    Nature throws up unusual rock formations every now and then. The Giants Causeway in Northern Ireland is one , it has a geometric structure to it from volcanic lava suddenly freezing with ice sheets and glaciers. The Baltic sea “ufo” is probably akin to something like that and the scientific community have to move very slowly and thoroughly before announcing anything. People like me can dream and talk openly about ufo’s and the like , but the scientific community have to be very rigorous as chaos would prevail if they weren’t. I would hedge my bets on a rock formation , but it would be great if it were something other worldly. Similarly there appears to be geometric patterns on Mars of huge proportions. When I showed a friend of mine the online pictures from ESA , he clearly pointed out that it was due to light aberrations from the camera ( distortions of the sensors and lenses ) , he works as a cameraman and has seen them himself .

  14. Runner

    Has anyone seen the NASA Teather Incident. Actual footage filmed by NASA of circular like vessels swarming the length of the broken teather as if they are wondering what it is – I believe it was 12 miles long ( it looks shorter). The vessels are shaped exactly like the Baltic Sea Anomaly, they pulsate with some sort of energy and you can see the shape of the vessel in between the pulsating. I do believe that is what is at the bottom of the Baltic Sea. One day, Mankind will be blessed with the knowledge of the universe, but we must make peace with all nations before we are granted the gift.

  15. gary paul

    Dude, the reason the ‘Ocean X’ is claiming there is soot is to make you believe that this object fell through the atmosphere, thus burning up like a space re-entry vehicle. Why do people constantly fall for BS like this… remember the ‘crop circles’

  16. scarborrough

    Soot is a residue of incomplete organic combustion. I don’t think they are that stupid to think that space craft would be made of wood and I don’t think most people would be either. They only said it “resembled” soot anyway. Seems like you are the one who has been taken in- by excessive need to find BS.

  17. D Sharon

    The explorers exhibited a sense of humor, especially when the leader joked, “who said they had to use metal.” I mean – did anyone laugh out loud at that? But let’s not judge the situation by the article. There are many questions about whether this was once not covered by water and used as a cooking area; or gathering area — if people placed the stones; though I don’t know how it would remain intact like that if it’s at the bottom of a sea. Do the rocks have an energy output that prevents a build up of silt? Etc. I’m sure though that the vast oceans and seas have so many mysteries we will never even hear about or see. Live long and prosper folks.

  18. Peter the painter

    The scientists say that it is made from rock, it quite
    obviously looks like rock, it has been found in a location where you would
    expect to find rock, the divers who found it say that it is made of rock, Ergo
    it is a 99.99999% certainty that it is a rock. For rocks sake get real
    !!!!!!!!!!! However I would absolutely
    love it if it did turn out to be a UFO, who would not, I bet all the scientists
    would. However we must not let our desire for wish fulfilment blind our
    judgement. It is a stone bonking certainty that it is a rock and there is about
    a (1,000,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000,000) to the power of 1000,000,000,000
    chance that it is a UFO.!*!*!*!*!*!*

  19. OG Kadaphe PDL

    I think they want us to think that it is nothing. Everything points to a crashed ship to me

  20. Charles Barnard

    Who can say what materials an alien (or even our) spacecraft might be made of? Carbon fiber composite isn’t metal, ceramic tiles aren’t metal…

    Though just from pictures, it looks like a basaltic intrusion.

    Sample analysis and sensor readings would be useful…

  21. TLEG

    The X-team never claimed it was a UFO. The retarded mainstream science outlets (like this one) and media did. They should look up the definition of UFO too :)

  22. Randy Brown

    You see Gary… there is two sides to irrational and unreasonable… There are those that claim to know for a fact that something is not true and those who claim to know for a fact that something is true. Both sides of that argument are equally as irrational. It’s like the difference between an atheist and a person with faith… They both irrationally believe they know something that they have no empirical evidence to support.

  23. Kitty Meow

    “Everything” points to a crashed ship? Really? Everything? Which facts are those? Not theories, facts.

  24. andre r. gignac

    What exactly, if anything, has been “solved” here? What we have in this article are the usual contours of the rush to dismiss as “demented” any claim that does not fit in the realm of tolerated thoughts.

  25. Oden Knight

    In science, knowing what it is NOT is just as important as knowing what it is.

  26. Ron King

    if you read anything about space travel and or meteors science is now saying that a space craft made from a meteor would be the perfect idea as it could shield inhabitants from radiation and be able to hold a population and incore gr
    ow systems that could sustain life (a biosphere in a meteor)

  27. Charles_Miller

    This story is deliberately misleading. Actual mineralogical testing revealed that BOTH objects (as there was another one of the objects discovered about 600 meters away from the first) contained extraordinary amounts of Titanium, Iron and Nickel…enough to positively identify the objects as metallic. If they are meteoritic in origin, they would be the largest intact meteorites every discovered on Earth. If the objects are definitely metallic but not meteoritic in origin, then the mystery escalates into a profound mystery. Interestingly, the Swedish Navy has now prohibited private dives at the site.

  28. Soundeditorrrr

    Many crop circles are made by aliens. The complete motivation isn't known, but they proved that boards DIDNT do the ones where the plants were cooked to a crisp and warped by an extremely high temperature that could not have humanly (or naturally) occurred. People have SEEN the circles being made by orb UFOs. Not everything is a double psych dude. But maybe it is for you, or someone who does no research

  29. Soundeditorrrr

    Oh, this article isn't agenda or anything. Regardless, IF it is only stone, it could also possibly be an attempted replication of an actual craft by Stone Age people. The shapes and similarities to other notched UFOs (the NASA tether incident, shapes seen on thousands-of-years-old cave paintings, and seen by many in the skies) lend credence to this idea.

  30. nightshade345

    This totally smells like cover ups and denial's the kind the U.S. government and NASA ( Never A Straight Answer ) always gives.

  31. Stephen Reb

    In fact, two guys with boards (and their ilk) made only a few crude attempts, which looked like the efforts of moderately talented children– as opposed to the elaborate, perfectly formed and inexplicable crop circles that continue to appear throughout the world.

  32. SomePissedOffGringo

    Most Atheists don't believe there isn't a deity. They just don't think it's likely.

    That's where I fall in.

    I accept the possibility of a higher power, just like I accept the possibility that we are just figments of a dream or lines of code.

    Doesn't mean I think any of those are at all likely though. In-fact, I think it's much more likely we just ended up existing from a series of random events that brought about ideal conditions for life to occur. A probability and random chaos based answer seems more realistic to our understanding of the natural world and universe, however inelegant that may seem.

    I do feel very safe in the assumption that religions have it wrong though. We can scarcely report accurate facts of simple, every day events that are happening now. What are the odds we'd ever accurately record the whims of an unimaginably superior deity correctly? Slim I'd wager.

  33. chriswfoster

    "Most Atheists don't believe there isn't a deity. They just don't think it's likely."

    Doesn't… Atheism come from the word "atheos", which means: without a God(s).
    Go to ANY atheist/religious message forum, youtube video, you name it… and look at the flood of atheist hate speech. It's clear what they don't believe in.

    This is what I think about those silly atheists these days… I think they're getting quite silly. They like to bash on Christians for believing, say stuff like logic logic logic logic logic (repeat logic until Christian gives up). Well, I say Christian, but in America it's the only religion they know half of anything about, so it's an easy target.
    But then they take a borderline agnostic approach when in the company of open minded individuals. Sometimes they even make up their own belief system – "I'm an agnostic atheist!".

    To me, the average atheist sounds no different than an devout/overconfident Christian.

    There's so many senses that we know of, yet we don't have. The senses we do have are weak. Electroception, magnetoseption, echolocation, unable to feel xrays or sonograph, infrared, etc.
    In another thousand years or so (if we make it), who knows what we'll be able to detect/measure.
    I'm just saying, I wouldn't even pretend to doubt the existence of something I can't sense. Nor would I be sure it exists though :D

  34. SomePissedOffGringo

    That's because most US based atheism is a reaction to societal mores. US society is predominantly Christian.

    I used to be the same, it's the rejection of dogmatic and oppressive beliefs for logic and reason.

    If you continue down that path of logic and reason, the hardline attitude softens.

    I, like many others, are confident that man made religions are no great source of wisdom or truth, but can hold no real opinions on whether or not there could be an underlying inspiration for the idea of a higher power.

    I dont consider that agnosticism, because to me, agnosticism is just the admission of disinterest.

    I dont know whether there is a God or not. To have a strong opinion either way would simply be a belief.

    I do however know a lot about the history of religion. And non of the mythologies make any kind of sense when confronted with humanities timeline of existence.

    When you pair that with the knowledge we have of the proto faiths that amalgamated to form the denominations still around today, it paints a pretty clear picture. And that is that they're wrong.

  35. Randy Brown

    You classify yourself incorrectly. Your perspective falls in to the agnostic category. I am also agnostic.

    Your perspective is identical to mine in every way.

  36. SomePissedOffGringo

    In my opinion, agnosticism is simply disinterest.

    Maybe my atheism is maybe more correctly called secularism? I feel totally confident that no religion is any great source of truth, I just don't know if there is a truth behind all of the myths, so to speak.

  37. Randy Brown

    Agnosticism isn't about opinion. It is what it is. I am not trying to be crass, I am just not sure how else to state it.

    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

  38. SomePissedOffGringo

    The problem is these terms become politically loaded beyond pure etymology.

    If you were to ask someone who identifies as an agnostic whether or not they believe in God[s], the answer would be an invariable "I don't know." (at-least any I've encountered.)

    If you were to ask me I'd say "no". I certainly don't believe. I just don't have a belief that one definitely doesn't exist.

    That might seem like a pedantic caveat, but I think it's an important one.

  39. Jason Black

    I don't think you should adjust your personal classification due to a false culturally interpretation of the true meaning of what it is to be of a specific alignment. If a person chooses to think something about you incorrectly based on their improper interpretation… that is their issue and not yours. It is a waste of time to try to change their perceptions. A prime example of this in our current times is the perception that if you supported Donald Trump that you are a racist, a xenophobe, weak minded, etc… The plain fact is that most people supported Trump because of all of the factual information that was leaked about her complete lack of moral fortitude, her complete lack of integrity, and her willingness to sell out our country for money. You will never be able to rectify this perception so I don't try to… I won't compromise my integrity such that people perceive me in the manner with which I would rather they see me.

    The point that you are making is pedantic because the meaning of their response and your response is identical. When a person says they don't know to the question of if they believe, it is the same as saying no. To believe something is to know that you believe it, you either believe it or you do not… there is no grey area. When you believe something there is no question in your mind about said belief. The reason they answer in this manner is because they want to skip a few steps of inquiry by virtue of answering their question and explaining why they don't believe in a concise way.

    I think you will discover rather quickly that people will perceive your position incorrectly if you continue to mislabel yourself. If your honest intent is to give the perception that is most accurate I would suggest classifying yourself properly and not using the term that you think is going to send the right message albeit the improper classification.

    Here is a comparison I found on the internet… If you agree with the statement, I am not sure you can deny that you do not fall in to the category of Atheist (based on your own personal definition of your perspective)

    You stated:
    If you were to ask me I'd say "no". I certainly don't believe. I just don't have a belief that one definitely doesn't exist.
    This is the same as saying that you don't know… If you don't hold the belief in a god or gods but don't rule out the possibility… that is exactly the same as saying that you do not know.

    "Atheism is about belief, or specifically what you don't believe. Agnosticism is about knowledge, or specifically about what you don't know. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not."

  40. SomePissedOffGringo

    Again though, they're terms that have become politically loaded.

    The difference as I see it is thus.

    I certainly don't believe in any theistic interpretation of anything, because any kind of theism makes less and less sense the more we learn about the world and the universe.

    There is an argument to be made for a 'first mover' or some sort of higher power that is responsible for all of creation. There is no argument to be made for our understanding of their proclivities or just how concerned they are about how we live our lives. Which is the bedrock of any form of theism.

    Whilst I don't hold a belief about the existence of a higher being, one way or another. I understand early attempts to understand the world around us that coalesced into dogmatic religions are no source of clarity or insight. That with the more we learn about everything, the less sense those old stories make.

    I am completely uninterested in anything which claims to "know the truth". Especially when each piece of new information we gather chips away at those "truths".

    I'd say this is the difference between a rational atheist and an agnostic.

    They're monikers that say something about your sate of mind.

    An agnostic is disinterested in the subjects of religion, belief and the truth of our origin.

    A rational atheist is interested, they just don't hold beliefs about things beyond their scope of reason.

    There could very well be a first mover, a being at the font of all creation. Something that kicked off the big bang, either accidentally, uncaringly or with great forethought and design. Then again, it could all be entirely naturalistic. Simple reactions in a system we don't understand.

    We don't know.

    I can say with unabashed sincerity though, that putting faith in the record keeping of early man to gain insight into the mind and morality of such an unfathomably powerful being is ludicrous.

    We can scarcely accurately report the truth of events that happen today, even with advanced technology which captures said events in perpetuity.

    Putting faith into the watered down and heavily altered ramblings of ill educated oafs from thousands of years ago, as they tried to make sense of the sun and the seasons, is an act of great narrow mindedness. Especially when you allow it to dictate the way you and those around you live your lives.

  41. Jason Black

    I think you are making some personal assumptions about agnosticism. I am agnostic and I am very interested in truth and the origins of our reality and or if there is an origin at all. I think you are relating a cultural bias to the term agnostic as opposed to the actual meaning of it.

    I understand completely the argument you present but your argument is based on our cultural misunderstanding of what an agnostic is. I myself have run in to many religious figures who see agnostics as people who can possibly be saved which may drive some agnostics to call themselves atheists to avoid these self proclaimed saviors. The plain fact is that an atheist the antonym of theist.

    A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    A deist believes there is a God who created all things, but does not believe in His superintendence and government. He thinks the Creator implanted in all things certain immutable laws, called the Laws of Nature, which act per se, as a watch acts without the supervision of its maker. Like the theist, he does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation.

    The atheist disbelieves even the existence of a God. He thinks matter is eternal, and what we call “creation” is the result of natural laws.

    The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding.

    Religious people believe without question in a god, atheists believe without question that there isn't a god. It really is that simple. Just because most people read you wrong if you call yourself agnostic doesn't mean you should care about classifying yourself as such.

    Ultimately the definition of this term isn't subjective or opinion based.

  42. Pingback: Massive Circular Object Appears to Move on Pacific Floor | Mysterious Universe

  43. Pingback: Massive Circular Object Appears to Move on Pacific Floor

  44. SomePissedOffGringo

    I don't share that interpretation of the words.

    Again, this may seem pedantic. But you ask an agnostic, "do you believe in god", the answer is going to be "I don't know."

    If you ask me I will say "no. I do no believe in god." I just don't have the belief that one doesn't exist.

    I also do think the most likely explanation for our existence is simply natural laws. I don't claim to know this as truth, but I think it makes the most sense out of every possibility we've considered.

    You outline the difference quite well here.

    "The agnostic believes only what is knowable. He rejects revelation and the doctrine of the Trinity as “past human understanding.” He is neither theist, deist, nor atheist, as all these are past understanding."

    In the context you're presenting here, you're making the assertion that there are things we don't know, so we shouldn't try to know.

    This is the disinterest I'm talking about.

    A rational person doesn't just dismiss things as 'past human understanding' and let that be the end of their curiosity.

    We don't know, we also didn't know what would happen if we split the atom 100 years ago. Or what would happen if we sent a man into space.

    I don't claim to know the truth of the existence of a deity or god, that doesn't mean I think it's "past human understanding" and be satisfied with that as an answer.

    I don't think there was a God, personally. But I'm willing to accept that there could have been.

    Maybe atheist isn't the best word for that, but it's better than agnostic.

  45. Jason Black

    It's not about interpretation, it's the actual definition. Facts aren't subjective

  46. SomePissedOffGringo

    Words and their meanings evolve. That's just etymology.

    Giving the archaic dictionary definition of a word may not represent it's current use.

    Most people who identify as modern and rationale atheists do not claim to know the existence of a deity one way or the other. Atleast as far as a 'first mover' or the like goes.

    They simply saying that 'there is a God,' is a bold claim. And it requires evidence. Atheism, as a group, isn't making a claim at all.

    Simply stating that it won't accept claims of Gods or deities without evidence.

    When you boil it down, atheism is more concerned with religion than it is any possible deity.

    Religions are fallible. This is knowable and known.

    Whether their could be some sort of god is not currently knowable, it however doesn't impact atheism.

  47. savaz

    ıts only a alıen movıe ın underdepth of ocean called abyss from 90'S ..that ıts must be left from the movıe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *