Talk:Baltic Sea anomaly

Operation Baltic Discovery
To differentiate between the media hype and 'mystery' surrounding the sonar discovery of the 'Baltic Sea UFO' and the follow-up expedition known as Operation Baltic Discovery I've thought it best to create two separate wikipedia articles so that people can better appreciate the two with separate headings. I will create this second article within the next two days and will include appropriate cross references. Hope this makes sense.Yogiadept (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than a Business Wire Press Release I don't see anything that would make "Operation Baltic Discovery" notable enough for it's own article. So I think the redirect to Baltic Sea UFO was the best thing to do. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt the press release even counts, which is why I redirected it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Scam paragraph
I seems weird that the "scam" paragraph is more then double the size of anything else in teh articel - seems a little biased to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.192.40.148 (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Reality has a rather skeptical scientific materialist bias. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Article cleanup
I did a fair amount of cleanup and restructuring. I think the subject is notable only because of the coverage/nickname given it by the media. It certainly has no recognition in academia or scientific journals. The Ocean X people are not scientists or geologists, they are treasure hunters and wreck divers, so calling it an "anomaly" or "USO" or any other term they promote is not appropriate in my opinion. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

YouTube interviews, promotional additions, etc.

 * The recently-added Description section is original research culled from interviews cited to primary sources (Videos published by "Ocean X") and unreliable fringe sources (Clyde Lewis 21st century, Howard Hughes The Unexplained, etc.)
 * Promotional-sounding additions to the lead such as "The Ocean X Team has themselves placed a video..." and "Later Ocean X Team informs via the same youtube-channel..." as well as advising the reader in Wikipedia's voice that "...it should have been called a Baltic Sea USO" are inappropriate analysis.
 * Removing material that serves to summarize the article content and placing it into an section called Speculations is counter to WP:LEAD. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in using primary sources to document the anamolies descriptive charecteristics or update on current findings/future plans of Ocean X. Ocean X are locked in a contract with titan television regarding their latest expeditions, so have only published nuggets of information on their own website and facebook group WP:ABOUTSELF as long as it does not unduly weight or bias the article WP:UNDUE. I think it's right to label it as a anomaly, rather than a UFO as there it is not encycloepedic to endorse a fringe opinion that it is a UFO. Similarly i would see USO as the correct descriptive label for it. Darwinerasmus (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: the article serving as an "update on current findings/future plans of Ocean X", see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIARY. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I did agree with your other points. good job on cleaning it up - it looks a lot better and more balanced now. Darwinerasmus (talk) 02:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Using the article as a promotional channel
Recent edits by and corresponding material published at "The Baltic Sea Anomaly – Wikipedia" seem to indicate the authors intend to use this article to post news updates for Ocean X Facebook fans. This is not appropriate, please see WP:PROMOTION, WP:NOTWEBHOST etc. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a glacial deposit, everyone go home
This was in my news feed. I'll try to fiddle with it later, I gotta get ready to leave the house. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

209.33.216.202
Hi Lucky Louie. I'm sorry if this isn't the right way to "talk" but I'm not familiar with the function. I have been trying to revise the baltic anomaly wikipedia article. I really am not trying to be biased or promote them. I am simply trying to present some facts because I feel that the facts are not accurately presented on the current page. Unfortunately, many of the images released to the public have been released on their open facebook page. In addition, much of the information about their findings has only been posted to their facebook page. There has been one article that was picked up by the mainstream media that has many facts incorrect, (for example, it makes them look like they are running a scam when, in fact, they have refused on many occasions offers for donations to fund their expeditions and refuse to take money from anybody. People were begging for ways to contribute to find out what it is, so finally they conceded and decided to sell t-shirts because they didn't want donations.)

So I'd just like to ask for some advice.

1. There are many more images that have been presented to the public through their facebook page. How can those images be referenced properly in a wikipedia article without violating copyright and in order to comply with the "reliable sources" requirement?

2. What do you do if a report with obvious errors gets picked up by the mainstream media without any factchecking? (The person who said that the rocks were from pre-ice age did not say that the object was from the pre-ice age, but the story that was run indicates that he did. He simply said that those rocks were from the pre-ice age and the interviewer misunderstood what those rocks were.)

I really do want to do this in an editorially sound way.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * - Read over WP:UPIMAGE for advice on what you can upload to Wikipedia. Bear in mind images must be copyright free, or you must own the images and be able to grant free rights to them.
 * - Wikipedia can only summarize what reliable and independent sources say. Wikipedia has its own definition of what a "reliable source" is at WP:RS. In this case we rely on reports published by major, established news organizations having adequate editorial oversight. Facebook and blog postings aren't considered reliable, as are extraordinary claims published by a primary source (e.g., Ocean X or its fan clubs). If you feel the news reports are not accurate your best bet is to get a major news source to publish what you feel is accurate. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have tried to contact the news sources to let them know of the inaccuracies, but they will not respond. I guess the page will just have to stay the way it is until they release the documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.216.202 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So if the major, established news organizations are miss informed, Wikipedia will spread the miss information as fact? Avfourie (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Sign Avfourie (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * How will we know if they are misinformed? Answer that and maybe someone can give you a helpful answer. Right now all I can say is possibly. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong descriptive word - "tablemount"?
The arcticle uses the word tablemount which indicates that the formation is "an isolated underwater volcanic mountain". Nothing at this moment makes clear that it is a "volcanic mountain". The formation may be made out of concrete, as reported by one diver. I question the word "tablemount", to describe the formation. JJFux (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

-this is def a ufo except its not wat u think, there was a poleshift 1.7 million years ago and the reason why it didnt erode with all the other material possessions of earth is because the nara didn't crash it on the moon. This ship they crashed is perserved because they crashed it into an area where the water itself doesnt move. That's why its magnefied crystals. The metal they used in those days were silver and gold on their ships. It would have gleamed like the sun compared to the primitive technology we use today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.25.193 (talk) 01:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Israeli report in Baltic Sea anomaly article
Hi, I noticed you removed my addition of the Israeli report on Baltic sea anomaly article. I assume that the problem is that the source (if you consider Ocean X team the source) is not independent. However if you look at the report (or look at what I wrote in the article) it actually says that the anomaly is simply plain rock. Thus the report itself makes no claims out of the ordinary; in fact it rather debunks the mystery. I think this is a relevant contribution to the article, considering that it is the only scientific analysis carried out on samples from the anomaly. I haven't been able to find an alternate source of the report.--Jaksel (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that Ocean X is claiming that the report shows a "high concentration of titanium" or something supposedly anomalous. Since the Ocean X blog page isn't considered a reliable or objective source, we should avoid taking things they post there at face value or acting as a repeater to give their various "announcements" a wider audience. If the report is notable it will show up in objective secondary sources and we can then include it in the article. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Ocean X team website says "High concentration of Ti – titanium in the sediments compare with the basalt sample.", and "NOTE: sediment containing much titanium", probably because the report says "Comparing the two spectra basalt (K) and sediment (J) spectra indicates (Figure 10) no significant difference except for relative high concentration of Ti in the sediments compare with the basalt sample.". But "significant difference" simply means that there is more titanium in the sediments than in the basalt; it doesn't mean that it is significantly anomalous so to speak. I suppose any two rocks picked from a site could show a significant difference. BTW I think the report mixes up the two samples J and K, or at least which one that has the highest Ti concentration. To be honest, I think Ocean X team are trying to make it sound a little more interesting than it is on their website, but that is why I have only quoted the report. PS thanks for moving the discussion here. Wasn't sure how to do it.--Jaksel (talk) 06:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking through the article history I noticed you removed another analysis made by Dr Steve Weiner because a reliable source was required. I recognized his name from an article in swedish newspaper Expressen: http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/cirkeln-ar-minst-14-000-ar-gammal/. That article quotes Dr Wieners findings, but it also quotes two other geologists that say there is nothing extraordinary about finding those types of minerals. I think it would be a good idea to include this in the article too.--Jaksel (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I found that source was being used to promote Weiner's WP:REDFLAG view that limonite and goethite are not naturally formed, while the orthodox geology opinions were termed "claims", hence, my copyedits. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article you cite does not contain the words limonite or goethite. Seems you're part of the smackdown effort, not just presenting the fact from secondary sources.  2601:151:C000:540:B093:9F7B:74B9:B7F5 (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously? To quote: "The result from Israel shows that the piece is metallic and contains limonite and goethite." Doug Weller  talk 12:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, the source is no longer used in the article, so it's a moot issue. Also I don't know what the "the smackdown effort" even is. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Electronics disruption
Since the disruption of electronics is a major part of the story, it should be IN the story. Also, since such things don't happen often naturally – solar mass ejections and solar flares aside – it is an extraordinary phenomenon, and thus potential evidence for something electronic being there. Since electronics disruptions have been reported to have occurred when planes have approached UFOs, then it is also fair that people consider that a possibility. It is therefore potential evidence for a UFO/USO, whether human, alien, or otherwise. Misty MH (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You could reference the links and lets see where it takes things? 68.144.194.164 (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Geologists are divided and are not in agreement
In regards to my edits being edited by Dr.K.

It is wrong to generalise what the geologists think as the article shows different opinions from different geologists. 'Geologists have stated that it is most likely a natural geological formation.' - my edit to this was deleted, has every geologist stated this? According to the page itself, no. - - Tony669900 (talk)
 * New sections go at the bottom. Please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~ ).  Please cite a professionally-published (i.e. not Youtube) mainstream academic source for your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's get real here. You come in this article and use youtube, a junk source, stating that: However, the chemical composition also resembles that of materials found in high tech aerospace Please see WP:FRINGE, WP:REDFLAG. Dr.   K.  05:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. It is not relevant to the point I made, I have not disputed that conflict. Further, maybe I should use the Daily Mail or Yahoo News?


 * No, Daily Mail is an unreliable tabloid. Yahoo News may well be unreliable on FRINGE theories. And yes, my response is very relevant. UFO theories are by definition fringe theories. Dr.   K.  05:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. Well, I am simply looking at the references on the page, it seems there is no problem with Yahoo News or the Daily Mail.

Dr.K. You took down my academic title for Steven given to him in the article talking about him. It is from the pre-existing page reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Here on Wikipedia we have rules regarding academic titles. Did you see my edit-summary link: WP:CREDENTIAL? Please click on it to find out why we don't use them in articles. As far as your proposed sources, please see what I wrote above. I will not repeat myself. Dr.   K.  05:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K.You have not addressed my dispute at all (it's in the heading). I am disappointed. This is not an answer: 'Let's get real here. You come in this article and use youtube, a junk source,' it is simply not answering the question. Simply questioning a source I provided which is a documentary on the matter. That is a separate dispute, and an edit which I have not disputed. Once again, you are not answering my dispute at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. Let me be more explicit: Geologists are divided and are not in agreement: Please supply a reliable source that states this. Remember: No youtube, no tabloids, no UFOs, no aerospace materials, no WP:FRINGE theories and no WP:REDFLAGS. Are we on the same page now? Dr.   K.  06:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I am using the content of the page itself, as different opinions are presented on the page, maybe 'divided' is too strong. If you don't like my edit maybe you should completely get rid of Steven's claim? Of course it must be a 'claim' which is weaker than 'say/said'. I tried, something new, along the lines of, '...geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 (talk • contribs)


 * You claim that the article does not support the claim that "Geologists have stated that it is most likely a natural geological formation." With one exception, all geologists (not naval officers or whatever) listed in the article do indeed refer to it as a natural formation. The sentence does not say that all geologists only say this, but that geologists have said that. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Nope. Can't look at the page and draw our own conclusions. That's not allowed. It is called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Once more: Please supply a reliable source, external to this article, for your claim or stop adding it. Because adding it back is called edit-warring and it is not good. Dr.   K.  06:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomsonDr.K. Well your arguments are illogical and my edit is better. I won't edit any further. Cheerio

Dr.K. 'Can't look at the page and draw our own conclusions.' That's exactly what my second edit would stop. You making your own conclusions.


 * Your second edit was: Geologists have different views on whether it is natural or unnatural. Can you specify who told you that? If you made that up, it is not allowed. If you can cite a source which said that, please let us know where it is. Make sense? Dr.   K.  06:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr.K. I'm going to have to get rich and do some deep sea coring haha :) then see what it really is — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony669900 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Lol. At least you have a sense of humour. :) Dr.   K.  07:12, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Disputed
I came here after seeing the claims and the fakey images promoted on Facebook, expecting to see some material properly cited to actual scientists, as opposed tp Swedish treasure hunters and tabloids, but the article at present is very credulous and lends support to pseudoscience. I added the "Disputed" tag since there is no scientific consensus supporting it being what the tabloids claim, a 200 foot diameter spaceship which crashed 140000 years ago. Even the alternative explanations are nonsensical, like the WW2 antossubmarine device or a battleship somehow having lost a 200 foot diameter gun turret. Edison (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Facebook posts citing tabloid coverage of this have said it might be a gun turret from a battleship/ The largest earthly battleships were from World War 2. The German Bismarck class WW2 battleships,, (which lost no turrets in the Baltic) had a beam of 118 feet one inch. The US Iowa class WW2 battleships had a beam of 108 feet 2 inches, and the cylindrical portion of the turret was about 30 feet diameter.  None lost a turret in the Baltic.  The largest WW2 Japanese battleship, the Yamato, had a beam of 127 feet 7 inches. No such WW2 Japanese battleships lost turrets in the Baltic.   News media positing a 200 foot diameter battleship gun turret cannot be regarded as reliable sources. Edison (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, way too much is sourced to the "Ocean X" team promoting the "mystery" or credulous reporting, and the article is sadly lacking in WP:FRIND sources. No academic sources take the claim seriously, but there do seem to be reliable, non-sensational sources available, such as, , and . Feel free to prune out the crap. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK I gave it a good copyedit and restructure, cleaning out the old tabloid stuff and pruning the selfpub Ocean X material. In reviewing the sources, it became clear that a set of blurry sonar images allegedly taken by Ocean X are what is actually being interpreted, and not an undersea somethingorother that can be confirmed as even existing. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The infobox, specifying exact location and composition (as if it were a real, verified object), seems inappropriate given that Ocean X is the sole source of the claims. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, ditch it. Doug Weller  talk 19:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Facebook posts included a purported side-scan sonar image which seemed to be a drawing of the Millennium Falcon. It did not resemble other sidescan sonar images I have seen. The lede of this article included several statements from the  Swedish treasure  hunters, presented uncritically. Should cites from  the tabloid media be eliminated as not being reliable sources, or is the whole publicity campaign complete with tabloid sources notable as a "meme" or a "notable hoax?" (ETA)The article now looks like a proper Wikipedia article and not a promotional blurb.Good job!

ThEdison (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All material cited to tabloid media has been removed. I've included summaries of claims that reliable sources have reported were published in tabloids, in order to give context, and these are properly attributed. If you agree with the rewrite and there's no further edits needed to satisfy factual accuracy, please remove the Disputed tag when you get a chance. Thanks. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Images
I added a link to this (admittedly somewhat dubious) site, as it appeared to have good images. But it was reverted with the edit summary "WP:ELNO, unreliable source hosting artists illustrations represented as actual sonar scans". As there are currently no images in this article, is any other editor able to find a reliable source with good images, that might be used as an External link? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I added an EL to the Popular Mechanics article which contains the original sonar scans. Unfortunately there are a number of "artist enhanced" versions such as this one purporting to be the original scan. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess the dividing line between "image enhancement" and "artist enhancement" is a narrow one, at least in the world of undersea imaging? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Baltic Sea Anomaly Project
Hi all, I have been following the Baltic Sea Anomaly for years. Now I saw that some guys started a project called "Baltic Sea Anomaly". I guess that is pretty new around the activity of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I had contact with these guys and they said the project is growing pretty fast. Very briefly summarized, the idea of the project is to raise money and do research around the object. You can find a lot more information of the project on their site: www.balticseaanomaly.com. So I wrote a new little section for the Wikipedia page, but someone deleted it and said that I should discuss this in this Talk group. He also said it looked like advertising, but I don't agree to that. I think people want to read it because I think it is a pretty big step to unmask the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. And (I know, this look like advertising but it is helpfull for the project), they can donate so they can see progress in, again, unmasking the mystery of the Baltic Sea Anomaly. I think there is a lot potential in these guys and in this project, so there will be future in the adventure in unmasking the truth about The Baltic Sea Anomaly!

FlowRiz (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You say yourself that "the idea of the project is to raise money and do research around the object." Wikipedia generally doesn't allow canvassing for any particular cause, whether charitable or not. That's not to say any mention of the project at should be prohibited. I'm not sure why it couldn't appear as a relevant "External link." Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No, it's going to be basically a fund-raising site. I don't see how it qualifies as an external link. Doug Weller  talk 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Did you look? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's even going to have a shop. Doug Weller  talk 12:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Am hoping for a 3D mouse-mat or perhaps a historic money box. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't know the Wikipedia rules very well, I just followed the Baltic Sea Anomaly for a while. But I guess it will be pretty relevant as a External link (I'm not sure about this because, as i said, I don't know the wikipedia rules very well). I guess it is relevant because it is a pretty big project around the Anomaly. I had contact with these guys again to ask them about that shop. They said they're not sure if they proceed with that because it doesn't really fit inside their project, they try to find ways to raise money. But anyway, I guess it will be very relevant to be a External link. FlowRiz (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should read the site:
 * It's pretty clear this is a fund raising site, and not appropriate for an EL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear this is a fund raising site, and not appropriate for an EL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OceanX vs. Ocean X
I note the naming similarity here. Is Ocean X, mentioned in this article, the same as or associated with OceanX? Should the article point out that connection or, if there is none, disclaim the lack of a connection? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Short description is too long
Does anyone mind if I edit the very long "short description" (which is basically the first sentence of the article) to something shorter and more concise? The guideline for short descriptions is about 40 characters. How about this: "object or natural formation on the floor of the Baltic Sea"? Feedback or other ideas, I'm all ears. Netherzone (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not an object, according to a consensus of experts cited in the lead. So “interpretations of a natural formation on the floor of the Baltic Sea" is more appropriate. Best regards, - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The page reads like an opinion, not a set of facts.
For example, the summary line quotes references 1 to 5 as expert opinions while most are just people's opinions themselves, and not expert. 223.118.52.185 (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The "people" being cited in the references are unquestionably experts: Hanumant Singh, a researcher with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Charles Paull, senior scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Volker Brüchert, an associate professor of geology at Stockholm University, Dan Fornari, a marine geologist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, and Finnish planetary geomorphologist Jarmo Korteniemi. Wikipedia's editorial policies give the most weight to expert opinions from reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)