Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So Orlanth........your logic is that even though you don't know how it could be done, and how it defies all apparent science, you're sure it could be?

Not sure I go with you there. Your reasoning on it being some sort of illusion jiggery pokery seems to be faith based, rather than logic-based.

Ketara wrote:So Orlanth........your logic is that even though you don't know how it could be done, and how it defies all apparent science, you're sure it could be?

Not sure I go with you there. Your reasoning on it being some sort of illusion jiggery pokery seems to be faith based, rather than logic-based.

Sound and light travel in waves and can be intercepted and redirected. We know for a flat fact that this is the case and that people use optics to decieve, some of the deceptions are very convincing. Audible illusions also occur, a cheap example is a ventriloquist 'throwing' his voice. Making the sound appear like its coming from a dummy carried off by an assistant. Thats an exampe of sound based redirection right there, and thats just a trick for human ears.

Therefore I see little reason why the same cannot be true to a submarine. A submarine is a like a blind man relying entirely on his ears and an internal map to get on in the world. That sounds like quite a vulnerable target to the right sort of trick to me.

Of course I cannot tell you how, just as I cannot tell you how to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Both quackers and disappearing landmarks are equally incredulous, one occurs why not the other. Are quackers electronic 'ventriloquism', possibly. We have motive, we have the technology to produce the sound. Do we have the skill to add a ventriloquist act to make the sound appear in very peculiar patterns, maybe maybe not, but it is not too far fetched. With multiple playing devices you could make a sound 'jump' about. Can you make a signal appear to move by reflecting it off something similar to how a lot of disappearing acts involve a mirror.

If I knew for sure I probably wouldnt be allowed to say.

Orlanth, I just spend a good half an hour going into the relative science detailing how stealth submarines and sonar work, and outlining the flaws, but then I accidentally erased it. And I genuinely cannot be arsed to type it all out again. *headdesk*


So, to summarise the large interesting post that was just deleted:-

-Ventriloquism is more optical illusion, any sound detecting device would not be fooled.

-Two types of sonar, passive and active.

-passive involves listening for soundwaves, and using the doppler shift to gauge the rough distance away, and speed of a craft.

-active involves emitting soundwaves, bouncing them off things, and building a virtual picture using the echoes.

-Passive sonar detected the quackers, however active could find nothing, an analogy would be hearing a voice, and firing echolocation at the source to find nothing there.

-Anechoic tiles/compartments can cloak submarines to an extent by absorbing sound generated within, and sound bounced off from without.

-The difficulty with applying this as the answer to the Quackers are several, to wit, the ones trialled by the soviet union in the seventies are full public knowledge, they were not in use by the US or Britain during the period, they only obscure sound at long distances (and the ones of the time were considerably less efficient than the ones deployed today), and even presuming for some kind of super tile still not know today, it would only absorb sound, meaning that the craft would still have to be travelling at 200 km/ph, an impossible speed for a sub even now.

-The other sonar countermeasures involve creating a large false signature (clearly not in effect here), reverberation (scattering any active sonar search attempt, not the case here as the sonar was not scattered, it simply picked up nothing), mounting sound generators in anechoic compartments to create misleading sounds (not the case again, no sounds at ALL were picked up by the active sonar, let alone misleading ones).


In short, of the countermeasures and science involved in sonar, none are applicable.

DemO wrote:The original motivation behind the ancient aliens stories was from white folk, noticing that it was the ancestors of all kinds of black and brown folk that build all these incredible ancient wonders. They couldn't reconcile their beliefs in their own genetic supremacy with the achievements of other race's civilisations, so they decided all that awesome stuff must have been created by aliens.

It's evolved since then, and the racism has faded into the background. But in the beginning it was there just to explain the shortcomings of our own ancestors.

Dude clearly your forgetting about stonehenge. Built in Wiltshire England believed to have been erected in around 2500BC in Neolithic Britain. These so called 'white folk' made it and yet people belive that it was also made by aliens, does that make them racist ? I dont get your point. Just because 'Black and Brown folk' made these things doesnt make me as a white man feel inadaquate, and therfore try and discredit there creations. Yet you imply that white folks are jealous so they made up these outlandish claims to make there egos feel better. Race or creed doent even come into it its just hard to explain how any civillisation with such basic tools could create such wonders with which modern accomplishments pale in comparison.

You my friend are confusing doubt with racism.

(edit) Quote got fethed up somehow that was a reply for sebster.

He's already answered this if you go back a page. Now normally I wouldn't take the liberty of telling you this for him, but I would like to say that I for one don't think the Burj khalifa 'pales in comparison' to a bunch of rocks in a field.

Taking all bets folks! Place your bets now for the titanic battle of structures!



vs



My money is on Stone Henge

Oh cmon thats an easy one. The first, anyone can have, as long as you throw enough money at it. The second one.....clearly gravity canceling technology

Ketara wrote:Orlanth, I just spend a good half an hour going into the relative science detailing how stealth submarines and sonar work, and outlining the flaws, but then I accidentally erased it. And I genuinely cannot be arsed to type it all out again. *headdesk*

Done that. It grates doesnt it.

Ketara wrote:
-Ventriloquism is more optical illusion, any sound detecting device would not be fooled.

Ventriloquism was a buzz word used to showe that aubible illusions exist as well as optical ones.

Ketara wrote:
-passive involves listening for soundwaves, and using the doppler shift to gauge the rough distance away, and speed of a craft.

Similar to binocular vision, which can be fooled.

Ketara wrote:
-active involves emitting soundwaves, bouncing them off things, and building a virtual picture using the echoes.

Active sonar can easily be fooled, we normally call fooling active scanning stealth materials technology, though there is more to it than that.

Ketara wrote:
-Passive sonar detected the quackers, however active could find nothing, an analogy would be hearing a voice, and firing echolocation at the source to find nothing there.

If the signal generator was small enough perhaps it might not be detected. It could also help explain a theory.

Ketara wrote:
-The difficulty with applying this as the answer to the Quackers are several, to wit, the ones trialled by the soviet union in the seventies are full public knowledge, they were not in use by the US or Britain during the period, they only obscure sound at long distances (and the ones of the time were considerably less efficient than the ones deployed today), and even presuming for some kind of super tile still not know today, it would only absorb sound, meaning that the craft would still have to be travelling at 200 km/ph, an impossible speed for a sub even now.

A phenomenon appeared to be moving at 200kph, that is different from an actual object moving at 200kph in water.
The latter would send shock waves detectable in seperation to the quack signal, however none were detected. This reinficred the idea that the speed of the signal, was illusory.



This is where my thinking goes. Cut for brevity.

1. Why a signal from an intelligence agency as a likely explanation of origin.

- Good motive to do so has already been established.


2. Can you back this up, in comparison to other claims?

- Yes. The phenomena was detected by soviet naval forces, specifically submarines. it did not appear to be a phenomena of concern to anyone else except briefly the Royal Navy, and that can be explained esily if they were in on it. Genuine phenomena would have been detected by more than one nations submarines and it would have aroused great interest in NATO. Unless they already knew what it was.
to counterpouint this other options do not make sense. Strange geological phenomena would be detectable to all.
Extremely fast moving sea creatures (ignoring the general implausibility for now) would appear to more than just Soviet submarines.
Likewise 'Ducks from Mars' make the least sense. To travel to Earth or to the near surface from some hiden alien oceanic civilisation is far fetched enough, though a popular idea. Its the idea that they reserve contact exclusively for Soviet submarines that is especially incredulous.

Ketara wrote:Your reasoning on it being some sort of illusion jiggery pokery seems to be faith based, rather than logic-based.

No, claiming this phenomena is the work of audible ilusions by intelligence agencies is the logical call, the alternatives are the faith choices.


3. How do we know NATO didnt care, or were even there.

Because at the time the phenomena was ongoing and Soviets heard it frequently enough for it to be of long term concern. This can only mean the signals occured in the Bastion. Soviet submarines sdo not ptrol anywhere else in large numbers and those that do tend to evade all pursuit. the very idea that the Soviets used active sonar indicated that the phenomena existed in their 'patch'. Naval doctrine dictates that a Soviet submarine that is exposed in general waters is expected to evade, certainly not light up its sonar. Submarines in the Bastion on the other hand investigate openly, they are there to defend the Soviet coast and most importantly the rergion of sea the Soviets habitually deployed their strategic missile submarines.

The Bastion was a major gathering point for NATO submarine forces, and is also covered by SOSUS. If something was making a noise there long term Washington would know about it very quickly, so would London.


4. Any reasonable backing to the idea of an 'audible illusion' travelling at 200kph.

yes. We can demonstrate this easily enough. we can create an optical illusion and make it appear to travel at 200kph or more with the flick of a wrist and a light pen. the phenomena being the 'red dot'. the dot of a light pen is a reflected signal this is important.


5. Why are reflected signals a clue?

Most illusion works by reflection. You need two mirrors to give the illusion opf invisibility to an object, three to make it appear to jump elsewhere. An optical illusion and an audible illusuion have similar properties, but based on directed and redicted enemrgy waves, one light the other sound. As submarines see with sonar detectors the analogy is very apt.


6. Ok so if illusions need mirrors where are the mirrors?

All around them. A submarine is surrounded by effective mirrors to sound enemrgy , one is the thermocline, the other the surface. Submarines use these mirrors to see 'bands' of sonar energy beyond their actual range. these same sense can be used to fool them.
a good reason to suggest this is so is because only submarines heard quackers, not surface ships. surface ships like bystanders to a magic event may not be able to see the illusion. Proper placement is important. If out of alignment with the mirrors an illusion wont work. This doesnt mean that large scale objects cannot be fooled, we know the oposite is true. If German bomber squadrons can be prevented from seeing an object as wide as the Suez Canal via obtical illusion techniques then there is plenty of room to work some mid games on a sub trapped in a magicians playpen betwween two collossal oceanic mirrors.


7. Does the signal have any clues as to how this would work?

The fact that the signal is a quack is telling. Its a pulsing signla rather than a continuous signal. So how it moves (if at all) and how it appears to move can be completely unrelated. A good example of this is reel film. 24 frames a second of reel film makes a set of static images appear to come to life as one fluid moving image. Intermittent quacks might work the same way giving a 'cinematic' appearance of movement to a series of static signals.


8. How are the signals placed?

As with the red dot from the light pen its possibly a reflected signal. Sound signals can be channeled in tight channels in a way similar to as sonic 'laser' with a fairly tight reflected sound. Sonar might not be able to pick up what it is because like a red of red light a quack is a simple return signal. Also most telligly all signals have no effective human throughput. To all intents and purposes to a man on a hydrophone all sounds are poor quality mono. Its the boats computer that analyses the quack, and it is not set up to handle this sort of data. The computer tries to anaylse what type of object is making the signal when in fact no object is, at least in the location from where the signal source appears to be.


9. What eventually happened?

The Soviets lost interest in object able to travel 200kph in water. Sorry I do not buy that. Obtaining the technology to make objects capable of travelling 200kph in water would made the next generation of Soviet torpedoes unstoppable.
the only reason to cease any interest is because the Soviets solved or had a solid theory as to what the phenomeon was and that it had no value. This could mean 200kph fauna, but that would reach the press, otherwise it could mean they realised it was a hoax perpetrated by an intelligence agency or other empowered body.

I cannot claim this for certain. But it fits logically by motive and is at a minimum partly plausible and possibly very real. A sonar expert could possibly tell us more. At any rate as the only other candidate explanations are aliens or extremely fast sea creatures this one deserves a second look under Holmesian logic. The above theory holds merit because all others are practially impossible, and this solution is the 'improbable answer that remains', and improbable being unnecessarily harsh.

DemO wrote:Dude clearly your forgetting about stonehenge. Built in Wiltshire England believed to have been erected in around 2500BC in Neolithic Britain. These so called 'white folk' made it and yet people belive that it was also made by aliens, does that make them racist ? I dont get your point.

You need to read the thread, that's been explained. To sum up, the original alien astronaut theories didn't even consider Stonehenge, it just looked at the mysterious wonders in places inhabited by not-white people. It was only with the revival of the theory by von Daniken and others that more and more mysterious things where included, as it was now divorced of the original racist mindset.

Just because 'Black and Brown folk' made these things doesnt make me as a white man feel inadaquate, and therfore try and discredit there creations.

This works as fairly solid evidence you are not living in 1894, but little else.

You my friend are confusing doubt with racism.

I'm not. I'm repeating a common observation made by people who've studied the origins of modern myths.

Orlanth my friend, your logic for motive is impeccable, and goes beyond even what I had considered.

Unfortunately, you still seem to be unable to provide the scientific means to fit the scenario. You've made a lot of generalised comments about laser pens and light refraction based subjects, but haven't actually translated that into actual hard science as to how this occurred in even the most isolated of cases with the quackers.


When I say your logic is faith based, I mean that you use your logic to determine motive, and then use that to determine your opinion, regardless of hard fact backing it up. A suitable analogy would be going after a supposed murderer because he had the most motive to commit the murder, despite him seemingly having an alibi. Sure, the fact he might have made death threats to the murder victim in the past is a reason to have him picked up, but you wouldn't be able to convict on suspicion alone, y'know?


I did a spot more research and managed to grab a few more facts about the case off the web, although like this entire thing, I couldn't personally testify as to its veracity, having never seen the actual primary source material myself.

-Detected only at depths starting at two hundred feet and below.

-Detected initially in the Barents Sea, however, at the height of Quacker detections, they were detected as far as the Atlantic Ocean.

-Were actively detected to 'pursue' craft, not just circle, destroying a theory they were stationary objects.

-Defense Minister Marshal Grechko ordered a special group in Soviet Naval Intelligence to investigate it, suspecting it was a new American mini-stealth submarine.

-Several Soviet intelligence craft were set to record and attempt to interpret the Quackers. The most notable of these was the Khariton Laptev, who was diverted temporarily in its mission after detecting the Soviet K-8 submarine in distress.

-Quackers appeared initially at the start of the 70's, sightings reached their highest in 1975-80, and then began to decrease.

-The joint Commission between the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Royal Navy operated for a decade (until the early eighties), but eventually disbanded, as their research supposedly proved entirely inconclusive. All material gathered was placed into 'Top Secret' security classification on both ends, where it remains to this day.

-In the nineties, whilst the US Navy was conducting an inspection of the ocean floor, the press reported that they had repeatedly recorded Quacker signals.


Presuming this is accurate information, it actually counters a number of the suppositions you made above, such as:-

-Only detected by Soviet submarines. (The Khariton Laptev was a surface trawler).

-Only detected in Soviet controlled territory.

-The Soviets didn't necessarily lose interest so to speak, it just seems to have been classified quite extensively, both on the Soviet end, and on the Royal Navy, and, now it seems, possibly the US as well.

-Only detected in Soviet controlled territory ( they were detected across the Atlantic as well).



Interestingly enough, another theory I stumbled across was simply some sort of prehistoric dinosaur species still alive deep under the sea (like the goblin shark). There have been enough other USO's such the 'The Bloop' for that to be a plausible alternative, although it wouldn't explain the subsequent security classification.

Ketara wrote:
Unfortunately, you still seem to be unable to provide the scientific means to fit the scenario. You've made a lot of generalised comments about laser pens and light refraction based subjects, but haven't actually translated that into actual hard science as to how this occurred in even the most isolated of cases with the quackers.

Perhaps not, but then I gave enough ideas generalised as they were. I can make a theory by comparing like to like even if without actual proof, that is more than good enough. I am not here to find proof, and it is an unfair bar to set before me, plausibility I have shown, and plausibility is enough. I am a better poltical analyst then I am a physicist anyway.

This whole study is only part oceanography and physics, its also military and politcal history, and it along those lines that I am working this through. As a bit of historical analysis I dont think its bad work. Got any former submariners who want to help with the physics? Pity is due to the subjects sensitivity i dont think we will find anyone other than another 'armchair' who can/will help.

Ketara wrote:
When I say your logic is faith based, I mean that you use your logic to determine motive, and then use that to determine your opinion, regardless of hard fact backing it up. A suitable analogy would be going after a supposed murderer because he had the most motive to commit the murder, despite him seemingly having an alibi. Sure, the fact he might have made death threats to the murder victim in the past is a reason to have him picked up, but you wouldn't be able to convict on suspicion alone, y'know?

No, its analogous to an accused murderer for whome there is no scientific DNA evidence or direct witnesses but who has clear motive supported by multiple corroborating witnesses who saw him at the place and time with the victim and can testify noone else was around. They just didnt physically see the guy doing the murder.
No direct proof per se, but plenty of evidence that would place the case beyond reasonable doubt. Sure a Duck from Mars might have arrived at 200kph, killed the victim and set up the defendant, but dont hold your breath trying to convince a jury on that one.

Ketara wrote:
I did a spot more research and managed to grab a few more facts about the case off the web, although like this entire thing, I couldn't personally testify as to its veracity, having never seen the actual primary source material myself.

Nor will you. Russians are understandably tight lipped. In fact other than the captain and some officers noone will be able to tell exactly where and when phenomena were detected. Its easy to keep secret in a submarine right down to the boats actual position being on a need to know basis.

Ketara wrote:
-Detected only at depths starting at two hundred feet and below.

That fits the pattern, 200ft is about a third of the way to the thermocline, this rings a bell here. I dimly remember a magic trick spoiler on large scale illusions and a the mark being between a third of the way between mirrors or something,anyone know more my Google-fu failed me at the moment. However possibly this means an optimal depth for reflected signals at 200-400ft. I would not be suprised if the maximum depth recorded is not listed; submarine services are tight lipped about how deep subs can go as much as they are about where they go. However it would be interesting if phenomena petered out around 400ft, perhaps with a second band of phenomena below the thermocline.

Ketara wrote:
-Detected initially in the Barents Sea, however, at the height of Quacker detections, they were detected as far as the Atlantic Ocean.

Sounds like the Bastion then. The Bastion extends into the Atlantic, and where it doesn't the perimeter hunter sub patrols are. Possibly this could mean at first the team set up suignals in the middle of the Bastion to ensure we got the Russians attention. Later we didnt have to bother creeping inand out undetected, we could just play mind games from more easily concealable positions in the Atlantic. easy to set up easy to disperse and closer to friendlier waters. Why go the extra mile when we can get the Russians to.

Ketara wrote:
-Were actively detected to 'pursue' craft, not just circle, destroying a theory they were stationary objects.

Stationary objects would be boring and easy to go up to and take a look see. You can easily fit underwater cameras to subs, they may even be standard equipment on some boats.

Ketara wrote:
-Defense Minister Marshal Grechko ordered a special group in Soviet Naval Intelligence to investigate it, suspecting it was a new American mini-stealth submarine.

If it was set up as bait, then consider that part of the mission accomplished. also it means the Russians dismissed Ducks from Mars and ultra fast sea fauna. Smart guys.

Ketara wrote:
-Several Soviet intelligence craft were set to record and attempt to interpret the Quackers. The most notable of these was the Khariton Laptev, who was diverted temporarily in its mission after detecting the Soviet K-8 submarine in distress.

Timewaster box ticked. Also if you want to know which Soviet merchantmen are intelligence craft and which are not see which change course if the sea goes quack.

Ketara wrote:
-Quackers appeared initially at the start of the 70's, sightings reached their highest in 1975-80, and then began to decrease.

Ahh the Winter of Discontent 1980, a funding lowpoint, followed by Thatchers cuts. That helps point to MI6 rather than CIA behind it then. If Carter was paying for it and it appeared to be working, Reagan would not have slowed funding.

Ketara wrote:
-The joint Commission between the Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Royal Navy operated for a decade (until the early eighties), but eventually disbanded, as their research supposedly proved entirely inconclusive. All material gathered was placed into 'Top Secret' security classification on both ends, where it remains to this day.

Or bundled into the case files for the misdirection operation.

Ketara wrote:
-In the nineties, whilst the US Navy was conducting an inspection of the ocean floor, the press reported that they had repeatedly recorded Quacker signals.

Maybe they thought it might work on Yeltsins lot, or the Chinese? Americans like to play with our old ideas, oftimes it ends up with healthy improvements. I wouldn't try it on China though, wrong profile mentality.

Ketara wrote:
Presuming this is accurate information, it actually counters a number of the suppositions you made above, such as:-

-Only detected by Soviet submarines. (The Khariton Laptev was a surface trawler).

I suspected as much when you mentioned it. Actually Ketara this really helps piece the puzzle. Soviet submarines and Soviet trawlers detect quackers. Cool, let me tell you what that means.
While other intelligence craft moved faster and were better for overall spying, trawlers had their advantages. First they actually got some fishing done, wheras other intelligence craft 'exported' cameras and radar sets and 'imported' the same ones home again.
A trawler is able to easily do what an ASW frigate cannot, dump large volumes of hardware into the sea and recover it again, and from the point of view of a spy trawler this is more than just nets. A deployed trawler hears as well as a submarine does, which is a lot better than a towed array or dipping sonar, it will also be able to dip a lot deeper than either and while 'trawling' will run a lot quieter than a frigate normally does.
Khariton Laptev helps identify the parameters of where the signals come from, while some signal leakage is inevitable it might not be enough to be a quack without the mirroring effect.

Ketara wrote:
-Only detected in Soviet controlled territory.

-The Soviets didn't necessarily lose interest so to speak, it just seems to have been classified quite extensively, both on the Soviet end, and on the Royal Navy, and, now it seems, possibly the US as well.

-Only detected in Soviet controlled territory ( they were detected across the Atlantic as well).

According to Admiral Gorshkov much of the Atlantic was, or ought to be Soviet territory. Its not like we or the Yanks don't get the same ideas.

Ketara wrote:
Interestingly enough, another theory I stumbled across was simply some sort of prehistoric dinosaur species still alive deep under the sea (like the goblin shark). There have been enough other USO's such the 'The Bloop' for that to be a plausible alternative, although it wouldn't explain the subsequent security classification.

If anyone prefers to believe in that I don't want to dispel their wish to live in a more magical world than we do. If we had not those yearning ourselves we would not be on Dakka. Stuff like yeti and Nessie hunts are not so much an obsession but a determination not to let go of the fantastical. I would love to believe in lost pleisosaurs of the Barents sea, but I dont have the luxury, my mind is chock full of fantasy as it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ketara wrote:-Were actively detected to 'pursue' craft, not just circle, destroying a theory they were stationary objects.

Fun though it would be this may not be the job for me. When on active duties on sub vs sub exercises (which is what this would be) you have to keep still and quiet. Crew noises can be picked up by other subs at suprising distances. Were I the operator of the emitter making directional quack noises, and here I am presuming that existed, making the wierd sound appear like its chasing a Soviet sub at 200kph.... well lets just say I am finding it funny enough here at my computer, the guys on watch on the sub that day must have had difficulty controlling their mirth when the Russian sub got spooked.

Saying that rolling around on the control deck laughing isn't very British, its just not done, stiff upper lip and all that. First get back to port then settle down in he officers mess with a pink gin and those boffins you invited up from London then you may start rolling around laughing.

Orlanth wrote:

Ketara wrote:
Unfortunately, you still seem to be unable to provide the scientific means to fit the scenario. You've made a lot of generalised comments about laser pens and light refraction based subjects, but haven't actually translated that into actual hard science as to how this occurred in even the most isolated of cases with the quackers.

Perhaps not, but then I gave enough ideas generalised as they were. I can make a theory by comparing like to like even if without actual proof, that is more than good enough. I am not here to find proof, and it is an unfair bar to set before me, plausibility I have shown, and plausibility is enough. I am a better poltical analyst then I am a physicist anyway.

That's fair enough. I'm a postgrad in that sort of field (War Studies), so believe it or not, I'm fully familiar with the sort of argument you're making here. Heck, to be honest, I agree with you to a large extent, I'm not generally a fan of the old 'aliens in submarines' angle.

I just refuse to commit myself to the analysis that it HAS to be the Soviets, the US, or the British playing tricks on each other. I agree it is the most likely possibility, but due to the extent to which the facts are uncorroborated or unexplainable by physical sciences (and they are, despite your repeated attempts to link it to light refraction), and known technological capacities of the era (and today), I'm going to keep an open mind on the topic.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the 'dinosaur' argument though. When you jump to the conclusion that that view is just by people who 'want to believe' as well, you're forgetting just how many interesting things have been found over the years. Goblin sharks, coelacanth; heck, its entirely possible that at those sorts of depths, there's a lot of marine life we don't even know about capable of generating these types of signals. I mean, bats use echolocation, as do dolphins and whales, its not too far a cry to presume that there could be some sort of other marine life capable of similar feats. The only thing that renders it unlikely would be the speeds, but again, I'd be loath to dismiss it as 'impossible' based on just that.

Hell, there've actually been several unidentifiable signals picked up on US hydrophones over the years coming from the deepest parts of the oceans, including one that was clearly of marine life origin(from audio profiling), but was eight times louder than the loudest marine animal known of to date (the blue whale).


Be funny if it came out it WAS aliens in twenty years though.