I meant to write brows (look over).
Alright. Browns was a typo. So I do not need a paintbox or UV light.
Now to the Placemarks.
Lock wall 1 --- Probably category artifact. The edge is vector graphics and too sharp for a real object.
LP3 --- The previously discussed sonar traces of ships have usually very different depth values as the computer generated ocean floor. Therefore, they appear more accurate than the model, as "valleys" or "elevations". At the ends and sides of these tracks, wall-like structures often appear.
"Accurate" is relative. There are still resolutions of only 100x100 m per pixel. (The best resolutions are, for example, Hawaii, there are 50x50 m)
P --- Corresponds to your placemark pX.kmz (post of June 27, I have discussed in my post of June 28). Possible further explanation also see below under "Pattern".
P1 --- The end of a sonar track (see LP3), the spikes are the usual guys, nothing special.
Now to the "Pattern" shown yesterday.
What seems like a huge shark's mouth is nothing more than single depth measurement (for example, with echosounder, no side-scan sonar). In a certain grid, the depth has been determined punctiformly south of Guam. And that deviates from the GE model. Now comes the joke: GE takes there both records and superimposed them. The different measurement points areI think because she have used a similar knife driving. now displayed as peaks and we already have this beautiful surrealist seabed that is so not exist. To the east of it looks like a riveted sheet metal. And the data in GE superimposed.
GE gets its seabed data from various sources (SIO, NOAA, US Navy, NGA, GEBCO, etc.). If one now shows two or more records superimposed, happens (I ask for forgiveness) - Bullshit. And with it our underwater anomalies.
So long
willi1
