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.
right, as if you've singlehandedly debunked the whole theory just by announcing it! lol nice try
yer not even close to presenting anything remotely comparable to what's in EUT
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.
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
www.youtube.com... this makes more sense than anything I've heard so far
a reply to: BlackProject
originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
Star Wars is included in the library of congress if that means anything.
a reply to: Krakatoa
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.
originally posted by: bottleslingguy
www.youtube.com... this makes more sense than anything I've heard so far
a reply to: BlackProject
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.
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...
You know this one's gonna get sticky for ya if you stay too long.
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.