It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Great Pyramid and the "Plutonium Mill" Hypothesis

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Hanslune


I don't believe the air shafts actually exited the pyramid, I'm sure someone will come along and let me know if I'm correct on that


Well the two shafts from the Queen's Chamber stop somewhere in the mass of the pyramid and don't exit. The two shafts from the King's Chamber turn horizontal just before exiting the packing stones, however it's anybodies guess if they actually exited the polished casing. Having put all that work into them you would think they did.



Yeah that what I couldn't remember, they did but they probably didn't! Thanks




posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 09:50 PM
link   
Uh, just a couple of questions regarding the 'plutonium'.

Firstly, where is the plutonium?

Secondly, with a half life of some 80 million years shouldn't there be evidence of said element, like radioactivity?



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: cuckooold
Uh, just a couple of questions regarding the 'plutonium'.

Firstly, where is the plutonium?

Secondly, with a half life of some 80 million years shouldn't there be evidence of said element, like radioactivity?


That is one of the tiny little points of concern with this idea, however as far as I know no one has ever done a radioactivity test inside Khufu's Pyramid - not even sure if anyone did the plateau. I suggested earlier that someone interested in this question should take a dosimeter and a Geiger counter into the structure. They make them now about the size of phone.

Another question is that no source of Uranium was found to have been tapped when people started looking for uranium in the modern era.
edit on 24/10/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2014 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I thought the first nuclear reactor was developed in a beer cellar under a church in Germany?
At first they thought it was just a vat of beer but then the Nuns caught on and made them move it to the Idaho desert.
Once they perfected the technology the same guy set up a secret plant and built nuclear reactors in an orange juice factory.

Truth is stranger than fiction.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Double Post.
edit on 25-10-2014 by jeep3r because: removed double post ...



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: cuckooold

Firstly, where is the plutonium?
Secondly, with a half life of some 80 million years shouldn't there be evidence of said element, like radioactivity?


I believe they were thinking along the lines of Plutonium 238, which has a half-life of roughly 88 years. That kind of izotope can be used for radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs).

Of course, I don't know where the plutonium would have gone back then. But today we use pellets of 238 PU to power spacecraft and rovers (eg. MSL).



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
There was that series "Chuck" where Sarah Walker worked in an Orange Orange which is built over Castle wienerlicious.
She and Chuck eventually married and inherited the Castle base.
For some reason I kept thinking the Orange Orange was actually the Orange Julius near Taste of Egypt in St John New Brunswick.

Haven't got all day to hunt for Plutonium but I'll check with Lise.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower

I thought the first nuclear reactor was developed in a beer cellar under a church in Germany?


You're referring to the experimental reactor at Haigerloch/Germany, I suppose. The Germans indeed conducted some milestone research in the field, but in 1944 they lacked the industrial capacities to produce fissionable material on a large scale. And they decided to use "heavy water" (deuterium) as a moderator, which is much more difficult to obtain (their deuterium-plant in Norway had been destroyed early on).

Due to these circumstances, they simply fell behind compared to the extremely large-scale efforts at Hanford (and other facilities in the US), all of which were part of the manhattan-project ...



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r


Jeep3r, no comment on my suggestions on how to proceed? May I then ask how you then plan to seek the evidence to support your idea.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: jeep3r

The 1930's reactor at Haigerloch was built with the idea of getting some initial parameters for more precise calculations.
Sort of like a 5 year old playing with chicken bullion soup, they have no idea what concentration each bullion cube produces.
Since the reactor was built under a church the initial trial experiments would be run sub critical for safety.

Once the German scientists had some metrics to work with then they could accurately produce the the critical mass equations.

Some of the German scientists in the know migrated to the US in 1938, the official story isn't clear.
The promise of a quiet place in the desert to do research was probably enticing.
There are some clues at the test facility in Idaho where the EBR1 was allowed to operated at critical mass.
Apparently some of the earliest reactor designs used a heat transfer facility for safety reasons.


Applying its BORAX experience, Argonne developed the project using a boiling water reactor concept. The virtue of the system was that steam from the boiling water powered the turbine directly, eliminating the weight and complexity of a secondary loop and heat exchanger equipment.2



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Of course, apologies: your suggestion for the way ahead was inspiring (eg. narrowing down the time span for a potential LC), but do you have any indications that this might yield any useful results? I'm asking because you mentioned 10.000 to 15.000 BC, a rather specific suggestion. And what about earlier pre-iceage cultures in that area?

By the way, I acknowledge that the lack of further evidence of an early & advanced civ is indeed a problem. It's probably the weakest point in most of the alternative views ... the other possibility would be to really take a dosimeter and check the frequencies inside and outside of the GP, especially if it hasn't been done before.



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

Since you're apparently interested in how nuclear physics started out in its development stages, what's your view on the OP and the hypothesis proposed by Miller (et. al.)?



posted on Oct, 25 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Hanslune

Of course, apologies: your suggestion for the way ahead was inspiring (eg. narrowing down the time span for a potential LC), but do you have any indications that this might yield any useful results? I'm asking because you mentioned 10.000 to 15.000 BC, a rather specific suggestion. And what about earlier pre-iceage cultures in that area?

By the way, I acknowledge that the lack of further evidence of an early & advanced civ is indeed a problem. It's probably the weakest point in most of the alternative views ... the other possibility would be to really take a dosimeter and check the frequencies inside and outside of the GP, especially if it hasn't been done before.


Given the small size of such equipment now someone probably has but no negative report was filed.

10-15,000 is a popular time for LC's however you could also look back the end of not 'our' ice age but the one before that where theoretically the same situation would have been in play. Circa 130,000 years (going on memory might not be right).

Those earlier reports may not have re-looked since newer technology came out, a pottery sherd that is 50,000 years old would look the same as one that is 6,000 depending on what type of soil it was retained in.

Its one of the ways (the ones I suggested) you can do for little outlay of cash and online, on the ground surveying gets expensive unless you can find a deep pocket somewhere.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: cuckooold
Uh, just a couple of questions regarding the 'plutonium'.

Firstly, where is the plutonium?

Secondly, with a half life of some 80 million years shouldn't there be evidence of said element, like radioactivity?


My theory is the plutonium was taken & used by the actual designers (shipwrecked aliens) of the pyramids as an energy source to power their ships to launch off planet.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Lanisius
Nuclear fission?
Hmph. I would have thought they at least had fusion technology.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They had to conserve what they had onboard. Just enough of an external boost to get off planet was all that was needed. Case closed. Next!



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Lanisius
They had a shortage of hydrogen? It's a lot more plentiful than plutonium.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Their ship was leaking energy man, what do you want me to do about it?



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Hmph. I would have thought they at least had fusion technology.


Meh archaic

The anti-matter reactor was kept in two canopic jar on the front porch of the Luxor temple outside the right entrance to the Hypostyle Hall.



posted on Oct, 26 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hanslune

10-15,000 is a popular time for LC's however you could also look back the end of not 'our' ice age but the one before that where theoretically the same situation would have been in play. Circa 130,000 years (going on memory might not be right).


130 000 BC is an interesting date, too. Wasn't that the last interglacial period where the the whole Nile Delta would have been permanently flooded due to higher global sea-levels (in contrast to the annual/seasonal flooding caused by rainfalls in the south)?

As for traces of radioactivity: it's interesting that the authors tell us exactly what to look for in order to prove or disprove their theory, for example:


Source Article (scroll to the end)

If the internals of the Great Pyramid were a nuclear breeder system, then there was a sizable wash through of water, which went to the Bottom Chamber. From there the water would have descended to an underground sand layer. Assuming retention of the uranium and plutonium oxides, the major, soluble, radioactive isotopes are Cesium-137 and Strontium-90. Because they have half-lives of 30 years and 28 years, respectively, they would no longer be detectable.

However, Barium-137 is very insoluble as barium carbonate, and presumably the bedrock in the Bottom Chamber is limestone or close to it. Some of the barium – as an ion – would have exchanged with the calcium in the limestone, producing insoluble barium carbonate. The discolored surface of the bedrock in the Bottom Chamber would have barium carbonate and this surface material is a prime specimen for sampling.


As already mentioned, at the end of the essay they're going through all the 'possible' traces that could have been left behind in the process (eg. short-lived izotopes, long-lived light & heavy izotopes) while explaining what kind of natural levels of radioactivity one is to expect, compared to those required for proving fission / nuclear reactions in the past.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join