NASA captures image of bizarre, perfectly rectangular iceberg

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
There are a lot of recent findings that suggest a serious of fast, large-scale flooding events occurred in several places around the globe between 12,000 and 8000 years ago. If those events turn out to have been connected, perhaps via a series of geological upheavals, then its quite possible they happened within a single human lifetime. There's little doubt that stories would have been passed on..we already know that human oral history goes back at least 6000 years and there's no reason to think it couldn't be much older. That practice was very important to ancient man.
I think its beyond awesome when oral history of something like this is validated by physical evidence.

My understanding is that dating of the fossil record puts the time period of some of these events coincident with the end of ice ages. The proposed cause of at least some is an ice dam breaking. As I understand it, though there were several such events, none of them were what I think could be considered global scale in that the Earth was not flooded everywhere all at the same time.

When I think of a global event, I think of something like the Snowball Earth hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
Strangely they seem to want to fund NASA more, or at least give them more attention(plus space force). Congress at least dished out massive amounts of money to science, including NASA, on the two year spending bill. Most of the organizations saw there highest budgets since pre-recession.
Interesting...
 

Squid Surprise

TS Evangelist
I think its beyond awesome when oral history of something like this is validated by physical evidence.

My understanding is that dating of the fossil record puts the time period of some of these events coincident with the end of ice ages. The proposed cause of at least some is an ice dam breaking. As I understand it, though there were several such events, none of them were what I think could be considered global scale in that the Earth was not flooded everywhere all at the same time.

When I think of a global event, I think of something like the Snowball Earth hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Interesting...
No such validation is present.... we have evidence of LOCALIZED flooding in a few different areas... which accounts for various STORIES in books such as the Bible about floods. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there was a flood over the ENTIRE Earth while humans existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
I think its beyond awesome when oral history of something like this is validated by physical evidence.

My understanding is that dating of the fossil record puts the time period of some of these events coincident with the end of ice ages. The proposed cause of at least some is an ice dam breaking. As I understand it, though there were several such events, none of them were what I think could be considered global scale in that the Earth was not flooded everywhere all at the same time.

When I think of a global event, I think of something like the Snowball Earth hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth

Interesting...
No such validation is present.... we have evidence of LOCALIZED flooding in a few different areas... which accounts for various STORIES in books such as the Bible about floods. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that there was a flood over the ENTIRE Earth while humans existed.
Hmm, fewer words than I used. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squid Surprise

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
:neutral: Have a look at this. I did not find it all that hard to find.
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/2-rectangular-icebergs-spotted-on-nasa-icebridge-flight
As far as it not showing the whole thing, the photo was shot from an airplane. There's two photos here as there were two ice bergs found. The second photo is the photo in the TS article.
Nice work, I admittedly didn't try that hard. Though looking at the two photos I see these are NOT the same icebergs. The aerial photo (where you see the airplane) looks perfectly realistic and not even close to as the nearly perfectly rectangular iceberg seen in the other photo (seen in this article). So my opinion hasn't changed.
 
Nice work, I admittedly didn't try that hard. Though looking at the two photos I see these are NOT the same icebergs. The aerial photo (where you see the airplane) looks perfectly realistic and not even close to as the nearly perfectly rectangular iceberg seen in the other photo (seen in this article). So my opinion hasn't changed.
Have a look at the background in the first/big pic. The ice behind the iceberg on the left is the same as the ice behind the 'perfectly' rectangular 'berg in the second pic. So that is the back/other half of the 'perfect' berg. Pretty squared off but not perfect.

So 2 pretty rectangular 'bergs right next to each other which probably shared a side when they were part of the same glacier. No big deal.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
Nice work, I admittedly didn't try that hard. Though looking at the two photos I see these are NOT the same icebergs. The aerial photo (where you see the airplane) looks perfectly realistic and not even close to as the nearly perfectly rectangular iceberg seen in the other photo (seen in this article). So my opinion hasn't changed.
Image from the NASA article:

Image from this article:

As I see it, crop and zoom the image from the NASA article and you have the image in this article.
 

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
Have a look at the background in the first/big pic. The ice behind the iceberg on the left is the same as the ice behind the 'perfectly' rectangular 'berg in the second pic. So that is the back/other half of the 'perfect' berg. Pretty squared off but not perfect.

So 2 pretty rectangular 'bergs right next to each other which probably shared a side when they were part of the same glacier. No big deal.
No it isn't... not even close. You need to have your eyes checked mate.
 

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
Image from the NASA article:

Image from this article:

As I see it, crop and zoom the image from the NASA article and you have the image in this article.
Not talking about this photo, talking about the aerial one on NASA's site. I even said that in my text; so I'm afraid you misunderstood.
 
No it isn't... not even close. You need to have your eyes checked mate.
Look again. At the 2 *different* pictures in the link:

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/2-rectangular-icebergs-spotted-on-nasa-icebridge-flight

The plane is flying towards the right in the 2 pics. The unusually squared-off 'berg in the smaller pic was taken first. The less squared off 'berg in the larger pic was taken second. The other end of the first unusually squared off 'berg is visible next to the engine in the bigger picture. How do we know?

Have a look at the holes in the ice behind the unusually squared off 'berg in the small pic and behind the 'berg next to the engine in the big pic. Same holes in the ice. Same ice piles, same everything. So the engine 'berg is the rear end of the unusually squared off 'berg.
 

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
Look again. At the 2 *different* pictures in the link:

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2018/2-rectangular-icebergs-spotted-on-nasa-icebridge-flight

The plane is flying towards the right in the 2 pics. The unusually squared-off 'berg in the smaller pic was taken first. The less squared off 'berg in the larger pic was taken second. The other end of the first unusually squared off 'berg is visible next to the engine in the bigger picture. How do we know?

Have a look at the holes in the ice behind the unusually squared off 'berg in the small pic and behind the 'berg next to the engine in the big pic. Same holes in the ice. Same ice piles, same everything. So the engine 'berg is the rear end of the unusually squared off 'berg.
Hmmm... I'm looking, but I just don't see it. They look like different size icebergs and the holes in the ice don't match up in my mind. At this point I will have to say there is insufficient data to make a positive determination; but I cannot say with 100% certainty that you aren't correct.