From: Commodore Robert Stanley Bates, usmm expedition leader
Download 35.99 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AKADEMIK NIKOLAY STRAKHOV
- IFREMER
- Geoacoustics 941 Transceiver and 942 Subsea multiplexor
- (Wall 1)
- Wall 1
- TGT 1.
- Summit 1.
- Phoenix International
- 11. Financial Considerations .
- 12. Still-Photography and Digital Video Documentation of the Voyage.
- 13. Commodore’s Assessment.
R. S. Bates Report on the Expedition to Atlantis 05/19/05 May 19, 2005 To: Officers, First Source Enterprises, LLC. From: Commodore Robert Stanley Bates, USMM – Expedition leader Via: President, First Source Enterprises, LLC Subj: Expedition Report, Voyage to Atlantis November 7- November 13, 2004 1. Purpose. The purpose of this report is to document the details of the participants, equipment, navigation and significant events from November 7 through November 13, 2004 relative to the voyage to Atlantis, located in the position indicated by author Robert Sarmast in his book Discovery of Atlantis, The startling case for the Island of Cyprus. 2. Mission. The mission of the expedition, as stated in the Voyage Plan dated August 24, 2002, is to explore the area of Atlantis/Eden by state-of-the-art electronic means, gather, process and store all possible meaningful electronic data for interpretation and presentation, provide records to support written documentation for publication, produce a media documentary of the voyage and place a capsule and buoy with appropriate enclosures to herald the discovery, in a significant position on the sea floor. (See enclosure 1.) 3. Participating Companies and Organizations. The following is a list of companies that participated in, and made significant contributions, to the expedition: A. FSE (First Source Enterprises, LLC), Tallahassee, FL B. EDT Towage and Salvage Co. Ltd., Limassol, Cyprus C. IFREMER (Institut Francais de Recherché pour L’Exploitation de la Mer) D. Phoenix International, Landover, MD E. GSE Rentals, Aberdeen, United Kingdom (Scotland) F. The Scotia Group, Dallas, Texas G. Greenberg Traurig, P.A.101 East College Ave. Tallahassee, Florida
I. Square Circles Publishing, 3890 Vista Campana South #13,Oceanside CA J. Mind, Body & Spirit, Inc. 101 E. College Ave. Tallahassee K. Aquatec Innerspace Operations, Ltd., Limassol, Cyprus L. MSC (Mediterranean Shipping Company, S.A., Geneva, Switzerland) M. UPS (United Parcel Service) N. CTO (Cyprus Tourist Organization)
The earliest bathmetric data acquired in the area of interest came during 1987 from Voyage No. 5 of the Russian Research Vessel AKADEMIK NIKOLAY STRAKHOV, a general-purpose research ship built for the Institute for Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The ship has an Official IMO Number 8211174, was built in 1985, It is 75.50 meters (247.5 feet) in length, 14.7 meters (48.2 feet) molded breadth, and 4.50 meters (15.4 feet) maximum draft. It is 2600 Gross Tons and has a cruising speed of 12 knots. (See Enclosure (4)). Prior to the expedition, important bathymetric data was obtained from the IFREMER French Research Vessel LE SUROîT acquired during an expedition from October 29 to November 15, 2003. The ship has an Official IMO Number 7360368, was built in 1975 and modernized in 1999. It is 56.34 meters in length, 11 meters molded breadth, and 4.10 meters maximum draft. It is 946 USM Gross Tons and has an average speed of 10 knots. The refit of the ship in 1999 provided an opportunity to totally upgrade all its scientific equipment. The performance of the new equipment is consistent with requirements for refocused cruises on the continental shelf, to the bottom of the slope, limited to depths of 4000/4500 m. (See Enclosure (5)). 5. Side Scan Sonar Equipment. One of the best systems for imaging large areas of the ocean floor is side scan sonar. The basic concept is much the same as the basic echo sounder; however, side scan sonar instruments are towed behind ships and often called towfish or tow vehicles. This technology uses a specially shaped acoustic beam, which pulses out 90 degrees from the path on which it is towed, and out to each side. Each pulse provides a detailed image of a narrow strip directly to either side of the instrument. The topography of the ocean floor and underwater objects reflect the sound energy to hydrophones on the tow vehicle. These reflections are amplified, processed and displayed as images. Some of the sound that is emitted by side scan sonar is absorbed by the seafloor; the rest is reflected or scattered back in different amounts, which leads to different images of the seafloor. For example, hard objects such as rocks and metal will reflect strong signals while softer features such as mud absorb sonar energy and produce lighter acoustic returns. Side scan sonar technology provides high resolution, almost photographic quality imagery of the seafloor. It is commonly used in industry to locate pipeline or cable routes, and to search out small but specific objects that need to be found, such as shipwrecks, mines, or downed aircraft. Side scan sonar is sensitive enough to measure features smaller than 10 cm (less than 4 inches) on the seafloor. It is also useful when accurate maps of large sections of seabed are needed. The instrument by which the investigation of the mission area was surveyed is the Modified Geoacoustics 941 Transceiver and 942 Subsea multiplexor. The Transducers are 2000m rated Neptune T120/121. These components were mounted on a GeoAcoustics 136 Towfish (formerly the COMPASS) and the towfish is labeled as the GeoAcoustics 136S Towfish when it is fitted with sidescan mounts. (See Enclosure (6)). The cable fitted was 5500m of Rochester A302799 11.3mm double armored coax. 6. Sonar Processor The CODA sys dualSense processor from Coda Technologies is a multiple trigger system. This state-of-the-art system is capable of simultaneous, yet independent data display, processing, and interpretation of digital data from side scan sonar and shallow seismic applications. This real-time sonar data management solution is used for hydrographic survey acquisition, processing and interpretation. Providing both internal and external triggering along with multi-sensor data inputs and a variety of easy-to-use display control, storage, and processing features, the CODA sys dualSense is a completely integrated solution with the complete CODA soft range of acquisition and play back software. The CODA sys system allows the user to program a navigation string and monitor the survey progress on-screen and in real-time as each ping return is geo-encoded with position, time, and other selected navigation data. Specifications for the Coda DA200 (Dualsense) sonar processor are attached. (See Enclosure (7)) The original line files, recorded on DVD, contained the raw line files in xtf format. The line files have the navigation information embedded within them, which is same way the initial geotiff images (georefernced map image), were produced. The position recorded on the data is the position of the tow fish, this position was calculated by the navigation software when the manual lay backs were entered. 7. Sonar Winch and Power Pack Equipment. The winch is a one design produced by MPD in the UK and designated GSE DEEP TOW WINCH 6000M - RMWH05. It has a 75kW 3 phase, 50 or 60Hz 415/440v power pack with an automatic level wind system. (See Enclosure (8)) The winch was installed on the Flying Enterprise and welded securely to the deck on the scheduled sailing day, Sunday, November 7, 2004. The winch is made up of two parts, the winch itself and the power pack. There are several electrical and hydraulic connections between these two units for the winch to operate. During the set up, some serious difficulty was experienced in getting the hydraulic couplings to mate and lock securely, probably caused by the hydraulic oil expanding in the heat. Once some oil had been drained from each of the three hoses they finally mated. In the course of events leading up to the final connection of the hydraulic lines, the feeder valve was closed from the oil tank on the power pack. This was to ensure that there was no pressure on the couplings when trying to connect them. Unfortunately the feeder valve was not re-opened when the winch was powered up with the result that there was a loud pressure release sound coming from the motor/pump area (on the power pack) and the return line pressure gauge was damaged. The gauge was replaced but caution was warranted when restarting the winch in case the motor and/or pump had been damaged. If they were damaged and were run, they may have been rendered beyond repair. Addressing the most likely problem, the hydraulic pump was removed from the winch, stripped down, checked and re-built. Since no fault was found with the pump at that time, it was re-fitted to the winch. A thorough visual check of the motor was then carried out and no signs of damage could be seen. To carry out any work on the motor itself would have involved an inordinate amount of time and the use of some heavy lifting gear. The decision was then made to purge the system of any air that might have become trapped and to try starting the winch. Once this procedure had been completed the winch was run and tested. The system was in working order and the winch and power pack were ready by the early morning hours November 8, 2004.
The initial survey plan for the primary target was based on the bathymetric multibeam scans (less than half of the beams giving useful data) conducted by the Russian academician Andrei L. Knipper from the Russian survey vessel AKADEMIK NIKOLAJ STRAKHOV in 1987 and 1990. (See Fig. 1 of Enclosure (9)). In 1994, the data were made available to the international community in a research paper by Dr. John K. Hall addressing the bottom relief of the Levantine Sea. The topography was indistinct at best, and the navigation associated with the data was somewhat suspect. Based on that preliminary data, a position of the central area of exploration was estimated by Robert Sarmast to be in the vicinity of 34.8° N, 35.0° E. In July 2004, nautical charts from both the British Admiralty (UK) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (US) were consulted in an effort to verify the central position. The chart analysis, with only relatively few soundings, still indicated that the central elevated target area appeared to be located at 34.85°N, 35.01° E. The position was predicated on what appeared to be the presence of a ridge or burm that ran through the central sector from Syria toward a point south of Cyprus. The axis appeared to be in an ENE-WSW direction: 082° T (True) - 262° T. It appeared that no like formations existed in the distant past on axes nearly perpendicular to the ENE-WSW axis, such as a NW-SE ridge, structure, canal or walls in that direction. As a result, the contour lines followed a general NE-SW pattern. It was this pattern that dictated that the deployment and operation of sides can sonar should be along course lines on nearly NE-SW bearings. Later in July of 2004, through a contact that Robert Sarmast made with a principal investigator from IFREMER, more definitive data, with much better navigational information, was requested for an area fifteen (15) nm (nautical miles) square around the Acropolis hill. The request used coordinates for an area of exploration, centered on coordinates 34° 51' N, 35° 01' E and bounded by the approximate coordinates (34°58.5’N, 34°51.9'E), (34°58.5’N, 35°10.2'E), (34°43.5'N, 35°10.2'E), (34°43.5'N, 34°51.9'E). The data requested represented only a portion of the data taken from the bathymetric multibeam sonar survey by the French Research Vessel (R/V) LE SUROîT during a voyage from October 29 to November 15, 2003. (See Fig. 2 of Enclosure (9)). The participating institutions on that voyage of the R/V LE SUROîT consisted of the Universities of Perpignan, Toulouse, Bordeaux, (France) Hamburg, (Germany) and Tishreen (Syria). During that expedition, two scientific subjects were under study: 1) The geodynamics of a convergent/transcurrent system in the zone-relay between the Arc of Cyprus and the Is-Anatolian fault. The structure of this zone and its geodynamic evolution, under the influence of the movements of three plates were under consideration. 2) The second topic related to sedimentary dynamics, in those two areas of seabed, generated by the activity of the arc of Cyprus and the activity along the Levantine continental terrace. The acquisition of bathymetry and the acoustic reflectivity data was an integral part of the research within in an area bounded between latitude 33°48'N and 35°54'N and between longitude 034°36'E and 035°54'E. Since the request from Robert Sarmast was specifically for marine archeological research, and was not related to either of the IFREMER's studies, the request was granted. On September 1, 2004, Robert Sarmast received the requested data from IFREMER and he forwarded it to Patrick Lowry of The Scotia Group, Dallas, Texas who returned three dimensional (3-D) graphic modeling software supporting Robert Sarmast’s claim of the existence of megalithic stones or megalithic stone structures in an area bounded by the coordinates (34°49.6’N, 34°58.8'E), (34°49.9’N, 35°01.2'E), (34°49.0'N, 35°01.0'E) and (34°48.0'N, 34°59.9'E). The 3-D graphic display model of the data in that area provided imagery appearing to be a 3700 meter long, 8 meter tall wall structure to the north (Wall 1) and a 2800 meter long, by 500-800 meter wide, megalithic irregular tabular structure on a low, 110m. rise, or (Acropolis) hill, to the south (Main 3). Also in evidence were canal–like ducts at the base of the irregular structures on the low hill which were leading off the hill on the north side. It was this area that became the primary target. It should be noted that the 3-D representation exaggerated heights by a factor of 10. (See Figure 1 and Figure 4 of Enclosure (10)). In the analysis, reference is made to “Wall 1” for the wall and “Main 3” for the (Acropolis) Hill and immediate environs with the number of meters from datum on the established navigation grid. (e.g. Wall 1+150 or Main 3+3375) A secondary target, identified by Robert Sarmast from the bathymetric multibeam scans by the Russian survey vessel AKADEMIK NIKOLAJ STRAKHOV during 1987, some 18 miles distant from the primary target at 35.0° N 35.3° E, was to be investigated with low-resolution side scan sonar. In the analysis, it is referred to as ‘TGT 1.” (See Figure 2 of Enclosure (10)). A tertiary target suggested by the IFREMER data in the southwest corner of the 15 nm by 15 nm square provided a comparison of the general topographical upwellings in the area, and was deemed to be a characteristic mud volcano, common to the area. From the primary target it is 6.2 nm in a south westerly direction located at the approximate position of 34° 48' N, 34° 53' E. In the analysis, it is referred to as “Summit 1.” (See Figure 3 of Enclosure (10)).
Under this plan, the Phoenix International team led by Tim Weller conducted the initial two sidescan swaths along the northern megalithic wall structure (Wall 1) of the primary target, the first side scan swaths to historically record the nature of the stone structure. With a fairly regular bottom, they were safe initial swaths, approximately 20m above the target and preliminarily verified the position of the object under investigation. Towing speed was approximately 2.5 kts. using low-resolution (100 kHz) sidescan sonar for a 400m. (350m, effective) wide swath. Target depth was approximately 1,500m and the towfish was approximately 4,600m astern. The parallel navigation lanes were planned to overlap by 25m with the intent to produce a seamless mosaic of the wall structure on an axis of 067-247 degrees true. However, the final results of the two scan lines did not reflect the desired separation, and, in fact, were nearly collinear. At the conclusion of two scans of the megalithic wall, the towfish cable was shortened to 2,400m at the end of the second pass along that wall. During a torrential downpour from a passing rain cell, an accidental flooding and shorting of the deck generator associated with the sonar winch assembly rendered the winch inoperable by any means, and the towfish was perilously deployed with no mechanical means to shorten the tow cable or bring the towfish aboard. Maneuvering the towfish toward a rendezvous point near Cyprus enabled a correction of the problem when the M/V EDT ARES delivered a replacement generator. The evolution took 21 hours and 24 minutes from the time the first generator quit, to the running of the replacement generator. Tim Weller was heard to say he "never saw a mission recover like this." Returning to the area of investigation, an early deployment of the towfish enable a single low resolution scan of the tertiary target (Summit 1) as the ship and towfish proceeded to the primary target (Main 3) over the (Acropolis) hill and associated megalithic structures. Seven low-resolution scans were conducted over the primary target at the (Acropolis) hill on an axis of 051-231 degrees true. Without a mosaic of the data, an accurate picture was not available, and a single track of isolated traces did little to verify the nature of the structure. As a result, the vessel and towfish preceded to the secondary target (TGT 1) where two low-resolution scans of the secondary target were conducted. A third line, (Wall 1+350), was also conducted to gain greater coverage of the megalithic wall structure. Upon completion of the low resolution 100 kHz scans of the three targets of interest, the next phase involved high resolution (500 kHz) side scans with a 150 m. wide swath to survey the centrally located (Acropolis) hill top area with the irregular tabular structures. The hill is approximately 300 feet (110 m.) high. It’s 2800 meter long by 500-800 meter wide megalithic structure is in the vicinity of the connecting coordinates (34°49.0'N, 35°01.0'E), (34°48.0'N, 34°59.9'E). Towing speed was approximately 3.0 to 3.5 kts. along parallel navigation lanes. Navigational charted depth in this area in approximately 1450m. Upon the completion of two high-resolution scans, the allotted time had expired and the data acquisition phase was complete. (See Enclosure (11) Commodore’s Log) 10. Legal Considerations. Prior to the expedition, the law firm of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. requested legal advice from consultants, Ince & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, for this and any future voyage to the Atlantis area. The response is included as Enclosure (12) and describes the various lines of demarcation in territorial waters and high seas over which jurisdiction may be exercised by bordering countries. The guidelines are general and speak mainly to archaeological artifacts. During the present voyage, no attempt was made to make contact, by any mechanical means, with the seabed or any megalithic structures found on the seabed. The waters explored were International Waters and all protocols, treaties and laws were fully observed. With evidence of megalithic stones or megalithic stone structures, a Remote Operating Vehicle (ROV), a sub-profiler, and a coring apparatus are the next indicated methods of survey in a concentrated area around the Acropolis Hill. Details and plans are will be determined based upon a study of the results of the side scan survey. Applicable legal considerations will be applied to the voyage. 11. Financial Considerations. The financial considerations for the project represent a truly remarkable part of the expedition. The generosity of a great number of individuals, companies and organizations made possible the expedition, that in actuality, cost between five and ten times the amount reflected here. A more precise accountability is part of FSE records and only an overview of the financial considerations will be discussed in this report. 12. Still-Photography and Digital Video Documentation of the Voyage. A team devoted to still photography and video motion pictures, to document the voyage as completely as possible, was embarked during the entire expedition on the M/T Flying Enterprise. Numerous still pictures were taken with a variety of cameras by the team, and in excess of 50 hours of DVD raw footage was shot during various evolutions. Cameraman Mark Greer collected the majority of the still photographs. The raw DVD footage was taken to England by Janelle Balnicke but as the sole property of FSE, the entire collection of raw footage will remain with under the control of FSE at the offices of Greenberg Traurig, P.A.of. Tallahassee, Florida. The specific use of the still photography and DVD footage will be determined and released consistent with the corporate plans of FSE. 13. Commodore’s Assessment. The first voyage to Atlantis for the scientific study of the remains of this great civilization was made possible only by the hard work and sacrifice of a large number of outstanding individuals. Their stories are sagas in themselves and may one day be made available for all to read. Thanks to their efforts, the release of the first side scan images of this historic site present the most credible evidence of man-quarried, man-built megalithic structures, the remains of which are consistent with measurements and descriptions of various documented sources. (See Enclosure 15). From a scientific and archeological prospective, the first voyage to Atlantis was an unprecedented success of enormous historical value. With over a decade of research and publishing by Robert Sarmast, coupled with over two years of planning by him and his team, the first expedition has indeed brought the debate over its existence closer to a conclusion than ever before and has established the foundation for further monumental discoveries. The side scan imagery will be scrutinized by a great number of scholarly individuals, many of whom, such as Dr. John K. Hall, will contribute corroborating analysis to Sarmast’s Discovery of Atlantis. To all who contributed to this first expedition, you have earned your place in history on a voyage to which all can say, “Well done!” /s/ R. S. Bates Enclosure (1): Voyage Plan prepared in 2002 Enclosure (2): The M/V FLYING ENTERPRISE Enclosure (3): The M/V ARES Enclosure (4): Russian Research Vessel AKADEMIK NIKOLAY STRAKHOV Enclosure (5): French Research Vessel LE SUROîT Enclosure (6): GeoAcoustics 136S Towfish Enclosure (7): The CODA sys dualSense processor Enclosure (8): GSE DEEP TOW WINCH 6000M - RMWH05 Enclosure (9): Survey tracks AKADEMIK NIKOLAY STRAKHOV and LE SUROîT Enclosure (10): Various multibeam and side scans images Enclosure (11): Commodore’s Log and Participating Personnel Enclosure (12): Legal considerations from Ince & Co., Rechtsanwaelte and Solicitors Enclosure (13): Cyprus Mail 8-25-04 Enclosure (14): List of the investors and contributors Enclosure (15): Side-scan images Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 35.99 Kb. Share with your friends:
|