(no subject)

Oct. 12th, 2006 10:25 am
roadrunnertwice: Me looking up at the camera, wearing big headphones and a striped shirt. (Default)
[personal profile] roadrunnertwice
And suddenly, history pretty much breaks. I'm dying to find out what happened!

(Hat tip [livejournal.com profile] jwz.)

EDIT: Maybe not so much.

Also: Here's someone who has a really irritating problem. OR DOES SHE?
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only
Depth: 1

Date: 2006-10-12 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jonsonite.livejournal.com
That's amazing!
Depth: 1

Date: 2006-10-12 04:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fozwalla.livejournal.com
Aw, man. I was excited until I saw this at the top: "Saturday, 19 January, 2002"

Since I haven't heard anything about this in the past four years (you'd think it would've been all over the news, over and over and over again), I figured they must have misinterpreted their findings. I looked up more info on it, and, sure enough, there seems to be strong opposition to the idea that the stuff they found was man-made. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_the_Gulf_of_Cambay) I'm gonna keep looking stuff up, though.
Depth: 2

Date: 2006-10-12 05:12 pm (UTC)
roadrunnertwice: Me looking up at the camera, wearing big headphones and a striped shirt. (Reversal!)
From: [personal profile] roadrunnertwice
Aw, man. I didn't even notice the date! I thought it was new and I'd have to wait to hear the opposition.

But yeah, keep me posted?
Depth: 3

Date: 2006-10-12 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kiplet.livejournal.com
Good story, but (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_the_Gulf_of_Cambay).
Depth: 3

Date: 2006-10-12 07:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fozwalla.livejournal.com
Eh, I ended up not going much farther than the Wikipedia article. Everything's already in there. The city walls and paths and whatever that the scientists saw were just artifacts of the sonar imaging. When asked to find the same places again using sonar, they couldn't do it, even though they went to the exact same coordinates. It was just noise.

And what they thought was man-made pottery was actually naturally-formed. Some of it looked man-made, but there have been similar things found in different parts of the globe, which were shown (somehow) to have formed naturally over time, and which are also pretty old.

Just a case of wishful thinking on the part of the original scientists, I guess. It happens.
Depth: 1

Date: 2006-10-12 05:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] froborr.livejournal.com
9,000-year-old submerged lost city with enormous stone foundations?

My advice to the archeologists: don't read anything.

Or that would be my advice if anything were actually there. =( Stupid reality, ruins all the best stories.
Flat | Top-Level Comments Only