Google Atlantis
Atlantis is one of those enduring myths that is so tenacious it provokes speculation about what is it, exactly, that makes it so irresistible. It certainly appeals to the imagination – wondering what an ancient yet advanced civilization might have been like. It also appeals to the little explorer in each of us. At a time when we can go on the computer in our living room and see high quality satellite images of the entire planet it may seem like there is nothing left to explore – no edge of the map beyond which there be dragons. A little mystery can be fun – perhaps there are hidden archaeological and historical treasures to be found, at the bottom of the ocean or under Antarctica, whatever your preference.
Ironically, Bernie Bamford, an aeronautical engineer from Chester, UK, claims he found an aerial map of Atlantis on Google Earth. What he found was what appears to be a 
grid-pattern of lines covering an area about the size of Wales about 620 miles off the coast of West Africa (here are the Google coordinates: 31 15’15.53N 24 15’30.53W. Bamford is quoted as saying that the grid pattern “must be man-made.” Some reports characterize the pattern as “perfect.”
Certainly perfectly straight lines and right angles are not features common in nature and they do indeed suggest a human technological origin. If you look closely at the photo you will see that the lines are not perfect – but to be fair they are close enough that the non-natural argument still holds.
What, then, are the possibilities? The standard archeological approach to an aerial photo of a potential site is that on the ground (in this case on the sea floor) confirmation is always required. This is because it is very difficult to identify objects from far above. Such images are notoriously susceptible to optical illusions and pareidolia (see the Face on Mars). A legitimate archeologist will not publish that they found X until they have gone to the site and confirmed X.
Further, it is important not to jump to the sexy explanation based upon flimsy data. There is no reason to think that this grid of lines is Atlantis specifically. In fact there is no reason to think that it is anything until the nature of the data itself is examined. Before we begin speculating about what the grid pattern is we need to ask – is it real or is it an artifact of the data. For example, if one finds a blob of light on a picture, before speculating about what phenomenon is in the picture a photographic artifact must first be ruled out. Also conspiracy theorists are fond of zooming in on NASA photos of the surface of the moon or mars and then declaring that the straight lines they find must be artificial and not natural. However, they are just looking at pixelation artifact from digital photos.
In this case the apparent grid pattern does not survive this first test. Google has made an official statement that the grid pattern is indeed an artifact of data collection. They used sonar images from boats mapping the ocean floor – boats following a grid pattern. The lines represent the paths the boats travelled while mapping and is simply an artifact in the resulting composite image.
So it turns out the grid pattern was man-made – it was made by the path of sonar-mapping boats.
Of course, there are many other reasons why the Atlantis hypothesis was highly unlikely. It is clear, for example, that Plato (who first wrote about Atlantis) invented Atlantis as a literary device and was not claiming that it actually existed. Atlantis was the evil empire, enemy of Athens, the shining virtuous city. Atlantis fell into the ocean due to its moral decay. This was a philosophical discourse – not an archaeology lesson.
And of course efforts to find even the slightest evidence of Atlantis have completely failed. The surface of the earth is finite, and as Google Earth shows us, it has been extensively mapped and explored. The absence of evidence for Atlantis (a highly dubious notion to begin with) at this point is more than sufficient to conclude (to the extent that science can draw any tentative conclusion) that it simply does not exist. I think it is also fair to say that it would be folly to invest further resources into looking for Atlantis.
The Google grid pattern, however, is likely to make its way permanently into Atlantis lore. Those who cling to belief in Atlantis as a real place are likely to be more compelled by their imaginations of what the grid pattern may represent than the logic and evidence that tells us it is nothing but artifact.
Good debunking :) The coverage of it in some of my UK newspapers (“Atlantis discovered” was one headline) was appalling. The Sun even had an “interview” with Plato!
Why is everything always “about the size of Wales”?
Just the headlines on this topic are varied and interesting.
Techtree.com: Lost City of Atlantis Not Found on Google Earth
Inquirer: Google denies it has found Atlantis
ZDNet: Google says that Atlantis is still missing
CNET: OMG! Did Google Earth find Atlantis?
I think that headline is incredibly unprofessional for CNET.
This was an admittedly an interesting image, which was worthy of asking “Huh, what’s THAT about?”
But now that the grid has been shown to be an artifact of data collection and not an artifact of an ancient civilatization, that should pretty much be that.
People interested in knowing the truth would let it rest, or at most do an additional survey to verify and correct the data error.
But who wants to bet that a follow-up survey showing no grid would satisfy the TBs? I have no doubt that they’d say jump straight to the Massive Government Coverup line… And these people, the ones unwilling to alter their conclusions based on new evidence, they claim that we skeptics are “closed-minded.”
It’s the size of the whales!
ok… bad pun…
I’ve a question though. Why is the pattern visible only in this location? Was this the only place, where this method of ocean floor imaging was used?
Mchl – good point. I should have mentioned that the same artifact can be seen elsewhere. It is not unique to this location.
Yeah, I browsed around. The coasts of Mexican Gulf seem to be covered with dense patterns of parallel lines. They look a like a result of much more organised effort.
My hypothesis is: someone has been looking for Atlantis in this location, and now someone else has ‘found’ it by seeing the traces. ;)
If you turn tip head to the left, it looks like the imprint of a giant fly swatter with a bent handle. Maybe the Intelligent Designer decided he’d made a mistake with mosquitoes, and went on a thwapping spree.
Steve, Steve, Steve, once again you have proven yourself to be in the pocket of “Big Logic” !!! What else could we expect from the President of “The NESS” (as in Lochness maybe?!!!)
I know for a fact that Atlantis is real cause I have a neighbor who’s sister’s dentist (a DR.) saw a TV show that proved that it was so!!!
Case closed!!!
I think its fascinating just how techonology has evolved, and namely, the internet.
Could anyone have imagined just 5 or ten years ago that an Internet Search Engine would be responsible for finding a mythical city?
Just the headline “Google Earth finds the Lost City of Atlantis” fascinates me. Can anyone imagine a history textbook in the future telling this story? It shows you how a cultural phenomenon (Google) can intertwine with mythical story telling, a legend that has been around for hundreds of years.
Had we actually found Atlantis, it would have been something truly amazing. Good debunking nevertheless.
As a Welshman, it makes me proud every time something is measured by the size of our small country (although it’s usually something bad like rainforest clearing).
What makes me less proud are the illogical pronouncements of our Prince.
Since Atlantis was evil, that means anybody channeling anybody from Atlantis can’t be trusted…
If this “city” was the size of Wales wouldn’t the apparent structures be absolutely massive something akin to the size of Cardiff
Of course, there are many other reasons why the Atlantis hypothesis was highly unlikely. It is clear, for example, that Plato (who first wrote about Atlantis) invented Atlantis as a literary device and was not claiming that it actually existed. Atlantis was the evil empire, enemy of Athens, the shining virtuous city. Atlantis fell into the ocean due to its moral decay. This was a philosophical discourse – not an archaeology lesson.
Oh the shame, Dr. Novella, the unenviable shame.
How dare you inject facts and verifiable information into a topic of baseless conjecture that drives the zeal and idolatry of the few but ardent believers. A literary device of Plato, such balderdash.
I say again, where sir, is your shame? Such unbridled hubris!!!
Okay, sorry, can’t keep a straight face, this is too funny. Very entertaining article, back in my chair now, decorum restored.
Google Earth has enough weird artifacts and optical illusions to keep conspiracy theorists occupied for the rest of their life. Water drops on the lens look like flying saucers, displaced shadows make cars look like they’re hovering, and so forth. This on top of crop circles, hedge mazes, miniature parks, and other unusual manmade and natural formations.
http://googlesightseeing.com/category/weirdness
Here are some real towns that are now underwater.
http://googlesightseeing.com/2009/02/18/ghost-towns-underwater-edition
Although i agree, jumping to conclusions quickly is foolish. However your positions that this is just an artifact are just as much a leap of faith as the Atlantis’s theorist. Basically you’ve all accepted Google statement, its an artifact and there are other artifacts in the ocean there for this is an artifact, and then you smugly laugh at any other possibilities. Well yes there are other artifacts in the ocean, just to the right you can see a vague grid, which is a good example of the artifacts i’ve seen. However there are a few unusual things about this one.
1. its very pronounce far more so than others i’ve seen, and isolated.
2. it forms a perfect square boundry, the other artifacts ive seen have boundaries that tend to be more vague.
3. if you look into the pattern you’ll notice that some of the lines stop at the base of mountains then continue on the other side, this is odd, as the artifact i’ve seen tend to run over the geography.
note the artifact to the right has patterns on the hills around it.
4. there are some very strange things about it, its a grid that tappers to a point with two lager areas forming the out side of a box.
5. the slight irregularities to it make seem more like it could be man made and part of the geography. other artifacts i’ve seen are too perfect, and are obvious because of it.
6. its kind of a coincidence that this is placed right in the area Plato described Atlantis, that is just outside the pillars of Hercules, (Gibraltar)
In all likely hood this may very well be an artifact, but to make such a presumption so quickly is just as foolish the conspiracy theorists.
And although I am skeptical, i do believe it has not failed the first test, there enough oddities about it could warrant some further attention.
Ok. Looks like there’s also a secret message from aliens to be found on the ocean floor
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=0.021973,94.96582&spn=3.278971,5.822754&t=h&z=8
@dave:
Are you kidding me? It’s absolutely false that Steve’s debunking is “just as much a leap of faith as the Atlantis’s theorist.” That is simply ludicrous. Let’s break it down:
FACT: A grid pattern found in recordings of the ocean floor looks remarkably man-made.
HYPOTHESIS #1: The grid is the remnant of a massive ancient city the size of an entire COUNTRY for which there is no historical evidence, despite what would have been the most audacious engineering project of its time or perhaps of any time. At some point in history, somehow, by some unknown force, the land on which this city was build was submerged hundreds of feet into the ocean. All of this with no historical evidence that this ever occurred and despite the fact that the grid, though definitely a grid, is wholly unlike ANYTHING we have ever seen in city construction or indeed in any swathe of land this large, anywhere. The grid survived thousands of years of exposure to erosive forces well enough to be imaged by radar, though it went unnoticed by those collecting the data until someone happened to notice the pattern.
HYPOTHESIS #2: The grid is an artifact of the way the data was collected. Similar patterns are rampant throughout other data collected in this same way. This argument is put forth by the very experts who collected and compiled the data, and is consistent with what we already know.
How can you POSSIBLY say that accepting hypothesis #2 is “just as much a leap of faith as the Atlantis’s theorist.”
I’ll grant you that like any good skeptic, if subsequent observations (and I’ve no doubt that there will be some) continue to show the grid, I’ll change my tune. But for now, case closed. Period.
Well said Patrick, I think that sums it up well.
I do find it interesting that immediately east of the grid is another, very similar one as well. Two cities of Atlantis maybe?
And is there any support, wonder and admiration for the wealth of learning and effort that has allowed mankind to reach the point where he can remotely map the ocean floors? Is there hell. No, apparently it’s far more interesting to imagine that Atlantis was real. Not in my book it ain’t. Yay for the surveyors!
Thanks very much for publishing this. When I was originally asked by the Sun reporter to comment on the photo, I told her that it looked like an artifact of the mapping. Unfortunately, she didn’t put that into the article. I’m glad that Google said as much. For the record, I do not believe that Atlantis was a real place that can be found in the Atlantic Ocean!
Charles – thanks for leaving a comment. When experts are quoted as saying ridiculous or just mystery-mongering statements I have learned, prior to criticizing them, to consider that they were just horrendously misrepresented by sloppy reporting.
Dave – what you gave there is an excellent example of anomaly hunting. You are just looking for anything that superficially seems a bit odd to you. None of your points, however, are known to be markers of real structures or to be incompatible with this kind of artifact. If you look hard enough you can find vague anomalies with anything, therefore their presence is not predictive at all.
In fact this is not the first time I have heard or read about some people using Google Earth for this kind of claim.
Last year I have heard and saw some emails of a crazy woman that using Google Earth have found the repaints of Atlantis in Terceira Island in the archipelago of Azores (middle of the Atlantic). What she found was nothing else that roads and trees that she said were giant drawings made by the Atlantis civilization. She even wrote a book (I don’t remember the title now) and went to a local Tv Show.
The global economic crisis looks “constructed” . Can Skeptics comment about it?
@Maria:
What do you mean “constructed?” Like a cabal of [ahem] “international bankers” who intentionally, for some reason, decided to collapse the economy?
No, the economic crisis is not constructed. It’s certainly due, at least in part, to the structure of Wall Street and the way our investment culture works (or at least worked)… And part of it is just cyclical. It’s more like a whole bunch
Last year, This American Life did a two SUPERB 1:00 episodes all about the “Giant Pool of Money” that resulted in the housing and economic collapse. Together, they’re the best — and most accessible — summary of what played into the economic collapse. They are WELL worth listening to in their entirety.
“The Giant Pool of Money”:
http://www.thislife.org/radio_episode.aspx?episode=355
“Another Frightening Show About the Economy”:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263
I agree that the images are probably nothing more than what Google says they are. However, I have a serious issue with this statement.
“It is clear, for example, that Plato (who first wrote about Atlantis) invented Atlantis as a literary device and was not claiming that it actually existed.”
Really? How is it clear?? Did Plato write, in some manuscript known only to you, about what Atlantis really was? I do not believe so. I believe you are doing nothing more in interjecting your own opinions and claiming them to be fact.
To me, that mere statement negated the validity of your entire argument.
@Shannon Stewart: To me, your signing as a playmate model invalidates all you say.
Well, not really. But it could if I didn’t care what you actually wrote.
And then, there is this slight possibility, that you’re genuinely named Shannon Stewart… maybe even the Shannon Stewart… :P
Even if we assume, Plato’s Atlantis was not only a literary device, the pattern found in Google would still be just a data collection artifact.
How do you know that any work of fiction is fiction?
I heard about this on the radio, fired up Google Earth to take a look. At first I thought “gee… only 25 or so streets? Not much of a city.” Then I used the measure tool in Google Earth and was amazed that it was about 160km x 120km… that would be one huge city! New York City is only like 20km x 2.5km… and how many streets are in NY? Imagine city blocks 12km on a side! Ridiculous. Of course, there is also the little issue of Atlantic being a made up place. How could anyone leap to such insane conclusions? I know I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.
I do have a problem with one part of this post. The implication that by scanning the ocean floor with SONAR you have somehow ‘explored’ it. SONAR will examine a location, you get its shape and maybe an idea how hard it is. That is by no means exploring it. I have no doubt that the ‘find’ of this ‘artifact’ is incorrect but instead take issue with labeling this area as ‘explored’. We have gone to so few areas under the ocean that it is amazing that we know as much about it as we do.
It’s clearly a giant alien spatula. Those things we thought were islands? Pancakes.
A good article on the value of not jumping to a hasty conclusion. That shows the value of skepticism, yet I think perhaps restraint would be a better paradigm. Some forms of skepticism are almost only restraint (yet they contain doubt, a bias), but some forms descend into self-indulgent ridicule.
Shannon Stewart makes a good point, but then loses her restraint, negating “the validity of your entire argument.” She is being “skeptical” and illogical. But what of her “good point?”
Has anyone interviewed the Greek philosopher? The “invention” hypothesis is a good theory, but shouldn’t we only always characterize it as such? Over a hundred years ago, scientists thought the myth of Troy was nothing more than myth and unworthy of investigation. It took an amateur to break through that conceptual barrier.
The 1948-49 Woods Hole expedition to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge found evidence of subaerial phenomena there, and beach-like terraces. A review of expedition literature, 1959, mentions none of the controversial material. Conspiracy? Likely not, but unconscious bias? Perhaps. Atlantis has garnered quite a stigma associated with clairvoyants, theosophists and Nazis. The Woods Hole data is hardly proof of Atlantis, yet it seems to support the possibility.
While reviewing the literature, I discovered three items of evidence which support the possibility of an Atlantis-like event right when Plato said Atlantis subsided. All three date to approximately 9620 BCE. Prove Atlantis? Hardly. The weakest of the three sorely needs corroboration, but if found to be a proxy for a real event, would prove that a Texas-sized landmass subsided somewhere in the oceans of the Earth, about 9620 BCE.