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.

 

(Historical cover up!) Earths 1st Nuclear War Will Be Her 2nd.

page: 3
114
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Still reading, but very interesting stuff. You should write an e-book about it.




posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok, fair enough.

So you think it is impossible ? I mean, they could not have used something we are not able to detect in the "normal" way as you describe.


We can detect any isotope on the planet. If it was produced, we should be able to detect it.


Or.. that after many millions of years the amount has become so small, it has become undetectable?



Or nuclear meddling will be detectable in the ground for millions of years to come. What you said is unlikely.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

"The number of infants with genetic disorders and birth defects in India is the highest in the world," said Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Center for Genetic Medicine Director and Society of Foetal Medicines President I C Verma.

Indian Express

Why birth defects and deformations in India are highest in the World, interbreeding is not allowed Hinduism so that cannot be the cause. Near first uranium mine in India there is a village which is suffering birth defects and miscarriages.
The star com .
More people breed more they distribute unhealthy genes. In lower classes, birth defects are more common that in the upper classes. What makes India so much different from the rest of the World, India is not only country with over population but seems to suffer most birth defects and deformations. maybe OP is in a right track .



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

First, you forgot to post a link to your source. Luckily I see the bibliography tags, so I can deduce it is from wikipedia, but now I have to go find your article on wiki.

So if you notice from the text you quoted me, these explosions happened 1.7 billion years ago and there is only one known location for this having occurred. But as you can see, even then there are still residual radioactive deposits leftover from those explosions (Uranium).



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   
While I agree there is something to this, and that much of our history is covered up and/or lost to us, I think that this article contains some rubbish. You lost me when you used it to validate the bible, then confirmed it was nothing more than twisting things to fit your hypothesis when you got onto the iridium and impact craters part.

Really, a space-faring race mining asteroids for iridium to explain it being found near your alleged nuclear explosion sites, when you admit that meteor strikes can cause the same effects? When using occam's razor, the simplest solution is that meteors or asteroids hit the earth.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry , here it is:

Link

Yes, i did see the timeline.. but that should not matter, as you did say they do not dissapear.
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, i just don't like statements as never and impossible.. as it concerns our history, because we don't know more as 1%

As for locations... where there is one.. there will be more.

But bottom-line: We did had fission and thus particles on our planet. And the theory behind that is sound... and who knows there are more of those natural events in our timeline, undersea, on or in land... We don't know.

So i do not under-scribe your fission detection as proof for no previous nuclear events of any kind.


edit on 18-3-2015 by EartOccupant because: Spelling and grammar



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Meh...3 pages later it doesn't even matter anymore...
edit on 18-3-2015 by RickyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I have trod where the OP now treads. It's still mind-blowing.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: EartOccupant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm sorry , here it is:

Link

Yes, i did see the timeline.. but that should not matter, as you did say they do not dissapear.


I didn't say they do not disappear. They have a half-life so of course they disappear. What I am saying is that they will be in the ground for millions of years after the event. Keep in mind, even after 1.7 billion years there is still evidence of these explosions having happened because of the Uranium deposits.


I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, i just don't like statements as never and impossible.. as it concerns our history, because we don't know more as 1%


You aren't being a pain in the ass. These are fair questions that I am willing to answer.


As for locations... where there is one.. there will be more.


Possibly.


But bottom-line: We did had fission and thus particles on our planet. And the theory behind that is sound... and who knows there are more of those natural events in our timeline, undersea, on or in land... We don't know.

So i do not under-scribe your fission detection as proof for no previous nuclear events of any kind.


The thing is, these events happened 1.7 billion years ago. The time line for this supposed nuclear exchange in our past is roughly 6000-10,000 years ago. That isn't nearly enough time for all the radioactive isotopes to decay.

Normally I don't like using words like impossible or never either, but in this case the evidence against such an event happening is overwhelming to the point that the participants of this battle would have to have scrubbed the atmosphere and surface of the earth of all evidence of this occurring, which is unlikely (if even possible).
edit on 18-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Closed for staff review.

Reopened.
edit on 3/18/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 11:56 AM
link   
While this is an interesting thing to consider, you'd serve yourself much better finding some reputable (or at least verifiable) sources, or reaching some conclusions via your own studies. The site linked is riddled with inaccuracies, and cites little to no sources. It's much better to discuss such a huge concept with verifiable sources, citations, some hard research, and solid science than it is sensationalist webpages (particularly those drawing ad revenue).

Go deeper down the rabbit hole, friend



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well tnx for replying, i learned some things today!

I think scientifically, you are right.

Me, personally, however, do give some credit to ancient accounts of strange stuff like this.
I do not believe it is all made up. The Sumerians for example have also documented history stuff that could be explained as nuclear or similar weapons.

Again.. true? I don't know... Interesting? For sure ! I do not dismiss it out of hand.

But tnx, i learned some nuclear physics today !



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

A lot of it could be attributed to Confirmation Bias as well. It's like when someone looks at Nostradamus' Quatrains and links them to recent events, saying "This is what he meant!" We could be looking at something from the past and in the search for meaning say "Well that describes Nuclear Weapons!"



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

True, and a little is in all of us.

But that is not what i mean, it's a few levels higher.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
So, really, what specifically is the point of covering up such information?

And why is it being done in such an utterly incompetent way that allows for millions of web pages, many hours of TV programmes and countless books on the subject?

Realistically, how long has this cover up lasted? I'm trying to be optimistic, but i'd say it would be difficult to argue such a cover up lasted for longer than early 20th century to about the early 70's.

It's all a bit thin really, and that's with out examining the evidence - which has been gone over many times and i'm bored of dealing with.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Firefly_

I agree with you about the bible it is not historically accurate and is pure fiction in some cases. Many bible pushers do not even know the history of the bible and it's true origins.


Emperor Constantine was the only reason we have this piece of fiction today. They voted......VOTED on what would make the cut and what would not. Mix that with the old vs new testament errors and you get....What.
edit on 18-3-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: EartOccupant

The problem is that past accounts, even coincidental ones, are all subjective accounts. Subjective accounts leave room for interpretation. If you primarily analyze the objective evidence and only use the subjective evidence to help corraborate the objective evidence, then you get a better picture of what actually happened. What you want to do is not look at the objective evidence that is saying one thing and favoring subjective evidence that says something else. The problem is that humans lie. Naturally, they don't lie all the time, but you can never tell when one is lying and when one isn't. It makes it impossible to say which accounts of the past are true or not. Objective evidence tells the most believable story since it doesn't lie.

This is why the scientific approach should always be relied on more than the subjective "it's true because I want it to be true" approach.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: HD3DSURROUNDSOUND

When you think of the huge, huge gap we have within our own short existence on this planet, we can only fill it for about 40,000 years but what about all the rest of time we have been cavorting on this planet?

I am looking to a quiet read through here but have read a fair amount on thi before and have always held that I want those missing years filled in but as we don't appear to be able to, one of the reasons could well be nuclear war which leaves precious little left and must affect our planet in horrible ways. Also if they atomics then perhaps they also had chemical and bacteria weapons also - which again would lead to our near extinction which we are coming to terms in some ways to believing.



posted on Mar, 18 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19132403]HD3DSURROUNDSOUND[/.post]

A big shout out to our mods for fixing my thread! Thank you. Will bear all your advice in mind. Thank you!





top topics



 
114
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join