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.

 

Evidence of Thermonuclear Explosion on MARS

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy





right, as if you've singlehandedly debunked the whole theory just by announcing it! lol nice try

Which theory , Electric Universe or the one the thread is actually about ? , I presented evidence to back my assertion that the found reactor site may have a natural origin.



yer not even close to presenting anything remotely comparable to what's in EUT

This thread has nothing to do with Electric Universe theory just as Electric Universe theory has nothing to do with Mars.
Philae lander put the final nail in the Electric Universe theory , it now lives alongside flat Earth in the draw marked thoroughly debunked.




posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: BlackProject

Here's a Thread I made on this same topic several years ago. Ancient nuclear detonation on Mars?

My source link in that thread seems to have died since then.

The consensus was that a meteor or something may have struck a large deposit of uranium. It's a feasible explanation that could occur in nature.


I'd go with an asteroid theory. Just look at the size of that crater (the bluish-purple area on the bottom right of the map). It looks like the force and energy was so strong, it actually pushed up the planet on the other side. What kind of weapon would you need to create a crater that size? But imagine a solid lump of iron/nickel just punching it's way through.


Or it could be parts to a remnant from a supernova, the same one that seeded our Sun into existence. I don't think we have ever detected an asteroid made of uranium, but we have found ones full of gold and platinum.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   
it's off topic but you will still comment so as to get the last word right? haha it's funny how you do that as if you proved something. you know why the Philae lander bounced when it attempted to land? because it was equipped with ice screws but since there was no ice or snow or really water at all it bounced. which just adds to the EUT about comets. where do you suspect the olivine minerals came from? how about the sand ripples? where did they come from? it's ok you can use the excuse it's off topic (and it kinda is) and run and hide. You know this one's gonna get sticky for ya if you stay too long.


a reply to: gortex



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackProject

Ive heard one of his lectures.... im not scientific by any means so i dunnno how accurate his work is!

Im sure phage will try to debunk and so forth as the dance goes! but imho something about mars is being hidden! maybe he is onto something..

the graphs that parralel nuke tests are quite convincing!



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
www.youtube.com... this makes more sense than anything I've heard so far

a reply to: BlackProject



That was a great documentary. I went to school for electrical engineering, but switched over to IT later and the documentary showed a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis. I hadn't heard that before about the formation of the surface features. Thanks for pointing that out. That would have been one heck of a light show. I would think there would be other evidence of large electrical discharges on a scale that would be required at an interplanetary level. Perhaps when we get technology to see much closer to planetary creation in a new star system we will see these kinds of electrical interactions.



posted on Dec, 28 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
Star Wars is included in the library of congress if that means anything.

a reply to: Krakatoa


So are 3 Marx Bothers movies and the original Superman comic book.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: spirit_horse

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
www.youtube.com... this makes more sense than anything I've heard so far

a reply to: BlackProject



That was a great documentary. I went to school for electrical engineering, but switched over to IT later and the documentary showed a lot of evidence to support the hypothesis. I hadn't heard that before about the formation of the surface features. Thanks for pointing that out. That would have been one heck of a light show. I would think there would be other evidence of large electrical discharges on a scale that would be required at an interplanetary level. Perhaps when we get technology to see much closer to planetary creation in a new star system we will see these kinds of electrical interactions.


it's what Nikola Tesla was tapping into and it's there right in front of our noses but tptb won't let it happen.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
www.youtube.com... this makes more sense than anything I've heard so far

a reply to: BlackProject



The person narrating that seems to ignore the possibility that more than one process led to what we see today in Valles Marineris.

The underlying structure of the chasm is thought to have been a rift valley caused by magma flows associated with the neighboring Tharsis Plateau and Tharsis Bulge. It is thought that magma chambers beneath the surface collapsed, causing the chasm.

Granted -- it's true (as the narrator of that video points out) that erosion processes ONLY or volcanic processes ONLY could not possibly form all of the features seen in the Valles Marineris. However, the vulcanism that is believed to have created the main structure of the chasm is not the end of it from a geological process standpoint. Over the next few billion years, erosion from water and wind, plus landslides, also may have helped carve some of the details of the feature.

Volcanic processes is what maybe made most of it, but successive erosion processes probably helped make it look the way it looks today.

That narrator sounds as if he's looking for a single process that created the entire feature. Geology rarely works that way.


edit on 12/29/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: bottleslingguy




you know why the Philae lander bounced when it attempted to land? because it was equipped with ice screws but since there was no ice or snow or really water at all it bounced.

Philae lander bounced because of the low gravity of 67P and the ice screws didn't fire properly , once landed the lander did find ice.

Measurements carried out before Philae '​s batteries failed indicate that the dust layer could be as much as 20 cm (7.9 in) thick. Beneath that is hard ice, or a mixture of ice and dust. Porosity appears to increase toward the center of the comet.
en.wikipedia.org...

No ice ? , think it's you who is making it up as you go.



You know this one's gonna get sticky for ya if you stay too long.





posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: bottleslingguy




you know why the Philae lander bounced when it attempted to land? because it was equipped with ice screws but since there was no ice or snow or really water at all it bounced.

Philae lander bounced because of the low gravity of 67P and the ice screws didn't fire properly , once landed the lander did find ice.

Measurements carried out before Philae '​s batteries failed indicate that the dust layer could be as much as 20 cm (7.9 in) thick. Beneath that is hard ice, or a mixture of ice and dust. Porosity appears to increase toward the center of the comet.
en.wikipedia.org...

No ice ? , think it's you who is making it up as you go.



You know this one's gonna get sticky for ya if you stay too long.




the density of the interior proves it is not even close to the standard model. where is the proof of this ice layer 8 inches under the dust layer? if there was a layer of ice how thick would it be? is it uniform throughout the duck shape? from the one map they showed it appears to be colder around the "neck" area and if Philae didn't land anywhere near that area how can you say they found ice? and the standard model predicted jets or eruption sites but they didn't find anything but solid, layered rock and sandy dust that forms dunes with ripples. they have detected heavy water being formed at or near the surface by electrochemical reactions but that's it- no snow no ice no water. and those sand dunes they found, how were they formed? any idea? nothing they've found is even close to what was predicted nor can they explain what they see using the standard model, yet the EUT can explain every feature. don't know how much time we have this far off topic but let's hear what you got.



posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join