[Proj] Slightly off-topic: The phantom island that is real

support.mn at elisanet.fi support.mn at elisanet.fi
Thu Nov 29 09:41:30 EST 2012


Yes,

now you have the right spirit in this topic:

though Nemo must be excluded since it was a fictitious figure
by Jules Verne..

generally speaking as long as something is not excluded it
must be included ;)

Janne.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mikael Rittri [Mikael.Rittri at carmenta.com] kirjoitti: 
> Aha! It must be Captain Nemo's submarine Nautilus that surfaces
> now and then. Jules Verne wrote about it in 1870, so it could
> appear on 19th century maps! 
> 
> Okay, so it is supposed to be only 70 meters long, but what's
> a few of orders of magnitude among friends?
> 
> Mikael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: proj-bounces at lists.maptools.org [mailto:proj-bounces at lists.maptoolsorg] On Behalf Of support.mn at elisanet.fi
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: PROJ.4 and general Projections Discussions
> Subject: Re: [Proj] Slightly off-topic: The phantom island that is real
> 
> Hehe,
> 
> the phantom military vessel theory is not totally excluded..
> 
> if there is a place that is 1400 m deep water when
> a research vessel visited it and old maps show
> whatever and so do new.. and nobody can 100%
> confirm anything.. so I would put a military vessel
> of what ever size as one of the possibilities..
> until better researched 
> 
> regards: Janne.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Daniel Strebe [strebe at aol.com] kirjoitti: 
> > At 30_km x 6_km that would be one mighty aircraft carrier! Also, it shows up  
> > on 19th century maps, same shape, which would makes it a doubly impressive  
> > aircraft carrier.
> > 
> > Best,
> > --daan
> > 
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: support.mn at elisanet.fi
> > To: proj at lists.maptools.org
> > Sent: Tue, Nov 27, 2012 13:17:34 GMT+00:00
> > Subject: Re: [Proj] Slightly off-topic: The phantom island that is real
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > well it might also be a hiding place for a military vessel .. 
> > for example a large aircratft carrier ..
> > that would explain the reason why it time
> > to time disappears and comes back?
> > 
> > at least the "sand island" top view is very
> > much like an aircraft carrier? ;)
> > 
> > http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/aircraft-carrier-top-view.gif
> > 
> > regards: Janne.
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > -----------------------
> > 
> > strebe at aol.com kirjoitti: 
> > > 
> > > Joaquim: Thank you for the explanation. But I think all you have done is  
> > confirm that the region is probably a large sand bar, sometimes submerged or  
> > partially submerged. There seems to be two reasons data is so sparse there:  
> > frequent cloud cover hindering remote sensing, and very shallow water that  
> > makes soundings by ship impossible.
> > > 
> > > Here is a representative sample of MODIS data that I culled from USGSs  
> > Global Visualization Viewer:
> > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MODIS-MCD43A4-02-2004.png
> > > 
> > > The particular MODIS data set is MCD43A4 (MODIS/Terra+Aqua Nadir  
> > BRDF-Adjusted Reflectance 16-Day L3 Global 500m SIN Grid). If you cycle  
> > through the months and years, you can clearly see that MODIS usually sees  
> > something there but sometimes does not. That means (to me) that sometimes  
> > the sand bar is submerged too far for the satellite to detect it but usually  
> > is shallow enough to yield a signal. None of the data are consistent with  
> > deep water.
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > >  daan Strebe
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: J. Luis <jmfluis at gmail.com>
> > > To: strebe <strebe at aol.com>
> > > Sent: Sat, Nov 24, 2012 6:36 am
> > > Subject: Re: [Proj] Slightly off-topic: The phantom island that is real
> > > 
> > > 
> > >               Daan
> > >     
> > >     Although we never phrased it out in those mails, it's quite obvious     
> > that what appears to an island in the SRTM+ is nothing but an     
> > interpolation artifact introduced by a constrain imposed the    coastline  
> > itself. Notice how close the coastline and the 1 m meter    contour lines  
> > are. Furthermore the maximum height in the SRTM+ data    is 1m meter, which  
> > is obviously very suspicious. I'll add it also    that the 'Walter' that  
> > appears in one of those mails is Walter Smith    from the Smith & Sandwell  
> > bathymetry.
> > >     
> > >     HOWEVER, that does not rule out the possibility that the island     
> > exists. Only says that there is no reliable data to constrain the    grid  
> > construction at that location. The 1400 m difference also    puzzled me a  
> > bit and moved by your mail I searched also the MODIS    data for Sea Surface  
> > Temperature ... and the mystery continues MODIS    does not seam to find  
> > water over there. See the image that I posted    in GMT mailing list.
> > >     
> > >  
> > https://listserv.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1211&L=GMT-HELP&D=0&T=0&P=116217 
> > 
> > >     
> > >     Regrads
> > >     
> > >     Joaquim
> > >     
> > >     
> > > I dont            follow your assertion. The e-mail you cite states the  
> > island DOES                  appear in GTOPO30 and SRM30+. I see the same  
> > thing. When I look at the raw values in                  SRTM30 Plus, the  
> > entire area of the                    island consists of sea-level DEM  
> > values. Plus, NASA Blue Marble satellite                        imagery  
> > clearly shows shallow water over the                        entire 30_km x  
> > 6_km area that is                                called 
Sandy Island
 on     
> >                               innumerable maps.
> > >       
> > >       Whether or not there is an 
island
          there (as opposed to a  
> > barely submerged            sandbar) is perhaps open to                 
> > debate or depends on the tides.                    But the crew of the        
> >                  research vessel is claiming 1,400_m soundings,               
> >                       which just                                        does  
> > not coincide with that area                                        at all 
> > >               
> > >  
> > >         
> > >         
> > >  Regards,
> > >            daan Strebe
> > >             
> > >                   
> > >         
> > >  
> > >         
> > >         
> > > -----Original          Message-----
> > >           From: J. Luis <jmfluis at gmail.com>
> > >           To: PROJ.4 and general Projections Discussions           
> > <proj at lists.maptools.org>
> > >           Cc: strebe <strebe at aol.com>
> > >           Sent: Fri, Nov 23, 2012 6:40 pm
> > >           Subject: Re: [Proj] Slightly off-topic: The phantom island        
> >    that is real
> > >           
> > >           
> > >             We discussed that on the GMT list too and no, the island        
> >      does NOT exist in the SRTM+ or GTOPO30 series
> > >             
> > >             See for example
> > >              
> > https://listserv.hawaii.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1211&L=GMT-HELP&D=0&T=0&P=107015 
> > 
> > >             
> > >             Joaquim
> > >             
> > >             
> > > The                  crew of a research ship claims to have undiscovered a  
> >                  large island in the South Pacifics Coral Sea near New       
> >             Caledonia, called Sandy Island. The news feeds have               
> >     picked up on this and its making its way around the                   
> > geeksphere with great rapidity. Here is an example                  article:
> > >                                          
> > http://phys.org/news/2012-11-aussie-scientists-un-discover-pacific-islandhtm 
> > l
> > >                   
> > >                   However, it is quite clear from satellite imagery and     
> >               multiple data sources that the 
island
 in fact                 
> >   exists, though possibly it is a barely submerged                  sandbar.  
> > Yet the crew claims depths there are around                  1,400 meters 
> > >                   
> > >                   Obviously the ship was not where they say it was. The     
> >               question is, how did the crew of this research vessel           
> >         convince themselves they were sailing in the same                   
> > area? I dont think a datum mismatch can account for                  this,  
> > given the size of the sandbar. 
> > >                   
> > >                   I have started a thread here:
> > >                         
> > http://mapthematics.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=469
> > >                   
> > >                   Enjoy!
> > >                    daan Strebe
> > >                                 
> > > 
> > >                     
> > >                   
> > >               
> > >               
> > >               
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Proj mailing list
> > > Proj at lists.maptools.org
> > > http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> > >             
> > >             
> > >           
> > >                   
> > >           
> > >     
> > >   
> > >  
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Proj mailing list
> > > Proj at lists.maptools.org
> > > http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Proj mailing list
> > Proj at lists.maptools.org
> > http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Proj mailing list
> > Proj at lists.maptools.org
> > http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> _______________________________________________
> Proj mailing list
> Proj at lists.maptools.org
> http://lists.maptools.org/mailman/listinfo/proj
> 




More information about the Proj mailing list