Ancient Atomic Blasts?

Cool equipment! Good rockhounding basics. Yep, I knew what they were when I saw them... had something like them years ago.

Originally posted by X-tal_PhusionScratching yields a rating of 5 (1-10 scale); not too hard & not too soft.

So, basically well within the range of glass/vitrified silica. Since the tests all fit the glass standard, what made you decide they weren't?

I've heard about the aerial burst hypothesis as well but I believe it was discounted. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the skeletons I went on an active search for peer-reviewed literature a few weeks ago and turned up just one paper about it-- that I was forbidden to access.

Skeletons in areas where there is radioactive ore (pitchblende, etc) do become radioactive after awhile. This is a problem with the collections that have material from the Morrison beds here in the US... the fossils are indeed radioactive!

However, it's not from a "nuclear war." It's because they lie in beds of pitchblende and other radioactive ores.

I'm not convinced by the crater shape... lots of things happen to craters through the ages. I think there needs to be stronger evidence that it isn't from a meteor event.

Originally posted by Byrd
So, basically well within the range of glass/vitrified silica. Since the tests all fit the glass standard, what made you decide they weren't?...Skeletons in areas where there is radioactive ore (pitchblende, etc) do become radioactive after awhile...not from a "nuclear war."...they lie in beds of pitchblende and other radioactive ores... not convinced by the crater shape... lots of things happen to craters through the ages. I think there needs to be stronger evidence that it isn't from a meteor event.

I never said it wasn't glass. I did say that I thought there was too much silica and too little water for it to be of volcanic origin. The density disqualifies it as vitrified nuclear waste-- never mind the obvious age discrepancy (unless Tut's scarab is chalcedony; solubility tests and Mohs harness of 7 exclude this). The LDG itself is not hot at all.

In fact, I'm inclined to agree that natural geology accounts for the radiation but I would still like to see the literature (recent if possible). My original home town sits over large uraninite deposits so I am familiar with the consequences of natural radiation (i.e., isotopic dating adjustments required for dating material in the area).

I agree that any number of things could have happened since the craters formed but I do wonder why there are two candidate source craters of similar age nearby.. which seems to suggest (in addition to scientific arguments) that LDG is not an impactite. Is there reason to believe that neither of these craters are sources for LDG? Perhaps LDG are impactites but we have the wrong site. Still, if this is a common impactite, why aren't we finding impactites identical to LDG in other desert regions untouched by nuclear testing?

Originally posted by X-tal_PhusionI agree that any number of things could have happened since the craters formed but I do wonder why there are two candidate source craters of similar age nearby..

Probably caused by a single object breaking up as it entered the atmosphere. This does happen frequently.

Is there reason to believe that neither of these craters are sources for LDG?

Not as far as I know. The evidence is pretty consistant.

Perhaps LDG are impactites but we have the wrong site.

A good point, and a real possibility.

Still, if this is a common impactite, why aren't we finding impactites identical to LDG in other desert regions untouched by nuclear testing?

I bleive we have... the qualification being 'similar'. As you know, soils vary greatly, so tektites formed in one area will be somewhat different from those formed in other areas.

Plutonium shouldn't occur in nature but in the Congo basin at a place called Shinkolobwe, deposits of plutonium were found. Just thought it worth adding to the pile of information.

My view is there would be more widespread radiological evidence had their been any ancient nuclear war.

I don't think its a factor really
I remember the home education we got when nuclear war looked like a real possibility back in the 70s
it started one day when our morning school assembly featured a teacher with a blowtorch and a piece of pork teaching us what burnt human flesh would smell like in the event of an attack. It then moved on to informing us that at the noise of the three minute warning we had to paint all the windows white and then take off all the doors in the house and cover them with pillows and form a nest adjacent to an inner wall where we should place a supply of food and drinking water, changes of clothes and sanitary goods to last us for the two years we would need to stay inside the refuge to avoid dying from radiation poinsoning which should by then have worked its way out of the local environment.

of course being poor in those days was a big advantage because we only had one door, one window no pillows and were used to eating far less to survive.

now theyre saying what
by the time its rained a couple of times all the radiation will have been washed away so if you don't find yourself looking like an instant leper in a wind tunnel when the bomb goes off chances are you'll be okay

still its funny because David Hatcher Childress in one of his books claimed that the indus city of Harappa was nuked and the evidence for this he presented was some highly radioactive skeletons found buried under a wall in the late 19th century
the fact that the geiger counter wasn't invented for another 30 years doesnt really detract from his claimed evidence that didn't appear in any of the factual archaeological data does it ?
i expect the skeletons were probably glowing bright yellow or something so thats how they knew what it was

either that or if you like you can put it down as a cover up by the only actual people qualified to know
thats the usual appraoch isnt it ?

Most of the so called evidence for this theory is the widespread occurrence of tektites which in actual fact are splashes of glass from big meteor strikes.

Sorry to prick the bubble but aside from natural Plutonium in the Congo there is really no other evidence.

Interesting stuff ill have to look more into it

Seems the ancient atomic blast site in India might be part of a cover-up.

"So, let us discover what might be the best evidence. The first question is whether a Francis Taylor existed. There is a Francis Taylor, an American museum director, who died in 1957. He was not an archaeologist. There is a “Franciscio Taylor”, but he is not the above quoted Francis Taylor.
Not a good start. Sceptics have also wondered whether the ancient atomic warfare is not a modern invention, to deflect attention from a serious – modern – atomic contamination. In 1998, it was reported that an Indian power stations had some major problems. One had an incident in which 2000 workers became exposed to excess radiation, 300 of which had to be hospitalised.
Surendra Gadekar also investigated the conditions of villagers at Rawatbhatta in Rajasthan and discovered gross radiation-related deformities. We note that Rawatbhatta is in the same region as the discovery of the “ancient warfare” site. But Gadekar did not find evidence of ancient warfare, but evidence of modern negligence: wood that had been used in the power plant, had then “somehow” made his way into society, where it was subsequently used as wood for a fire. This in itself was a minor incident, but could there have been more serious incidents, whereby it was decided to deflect attention from the present to the ancient past?
We thus find that there no newspapers carried the story of the discovery. The Indian archaeological authorities are not aware of the story. And there is a government laboratory in Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Might something have gone wrong in the latter?"

www.truthwaylife.com...

Originally posted by Marduk

I remember the home education we got when nuclear war looked like a real possibility back in the 70s
it started one day when our morning school assembly featured a teacher with a blowtorch and a piece of pork teaching us what burnt human flesh would smell like in the event of an attack. It then moved on to informing us that at the noise of the three minute warning

Wowwww, wou wou wait there. So you are saying your teacher was teaching you how to defense from nuke blast. Question, just how your teacher knew and understood the effect of atomic blast before he/she could teach you anything?

One can assume, your teachers has been experiencing the great blast of nuke. They have studied the effect from what they have done on Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What I am saying is that, British went to America, and America bombed Japan. British recorded it and gave lesson to their children about how bad the atomic/nuke blast is.

Originally posted by CinLung-Part-1

One can assume, your teachers has been experiencing the great blast of nuke. They have studied the effect from what they have done on Japan Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What I am saying is that, British went to America, and America bombed Japan. British recorded it and gave lesson to their children about how bad the atomic/nuke blast is.

assume all you like
they got all their info from a government leaflet which was posted to all residences in the UK
that and from watching Apocalypse now

from:
www.pnas.org... =HWCIT

Each of the 10 Clovis-age sites displays a YDB layer (average thickness of 3 cm) that contains a diversity of markers (magnetic microspherules and grains, charcoal, soot, carbon spherules, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, and fullerenes with ET helium). The Ir levels are above background in both bulk sediment and magnetic fractions at up to 117 parts per billion (ppb), which is 25% of levels in CI (Ivuna type) chondritic meteorites (23). The YDB also exhibits uranium (U) and thorium (Th) in high concentrations that are up to 25× crustal abundance. At the 15 Bay sites examined, basal sediments and rim sands contain peaks in the same ET assemblage found in the YDB at Clovis sites elsewhere.

this about the 12900 years ago mass extinction. The theory now seems to be that it was caused by a large number of tunguska style airburst meteorite events in a space of no more than a few years. Carbonacious ivuna type meteorites may explode in the air easy. But the high: Uranium, Thorium, He3, etc does sound far more like nuke bomb results. The carbon products could easy be terrestrial from airburst nuke flashes. The Heavy elements are completely wrong for " CI (Ivuna type) chondritic meteorites" which are carbon, water, silicon. all light element stuff. Heavy metal meteorites don't likely airburst. Unless carefully organised and supplied with high explosive compaction systems and precise timers.

Well annoymous

(magnetic microspherules and grains, charcoal, soot, carbon spherules, glass-like carbon, nanodiamonds, and fullerenes with ET helium). The Ir levels are above background in both bulk sediment and magnetic fractions at up to 117 parts per billion (ppb), which is 25% of levels in CI (Ivuna type) chondritic meteorites (23). The YDB also exhibits uranium (U) and thorium (Th) in high concentrations that are up to 25× crustal abundance.

This is what has been found in the layers

You might compare that to what has been found from the remnants of the Chinese above ground nuclear tests

You seem to be confusing U-238 and U-235

www.springerlink.com...

Actually no. I have extensive knowledge of nuclear reaction and isotope physics.
There is every possibility that such isotope signatures could be the markers of nuclear bomb use. The thorium could either be the result of u235+n to u236 to th232 via alpha decay (not all u235+n results in fission) or the use of thorium as a bomb tamper (containment sphere). Most current fission systems use u238 for this purpose. And overall in these modern systems the ratio of U238/U235 is not far different from natural U isotope ratios. The U235 is simply moved from the tamper to the fission core.
Of course there are other possibilities than Bombs, or cometry fragments. Nearby supernova would fit too. And that would, like bombs, produce the neutron bombardment and N13 to C14 that has been studied and plausibly fingered in post 12900bp carbon dating inconsistancies. Supernovae could possibly explain the U, Th, Ir content, but unlikely at 25x normal levels.
Another sentence in the study I quoted above interests me

Some megafaunal bones in the YDB are highly radioactive relative to other stratigraphic intervals,

I wonder about those skull types with brain pan sizes twice our current level from 30000bp america, and the relevance to widespread indigenous history of age of wiracoccas with godlike tech that produced the oldest and most impossible without hi-tech megaliths like the Puma-punku ones. Followed in those legends by age of giants, age of barbarians, age of halfhuman halfgods, and then the latest 4000bp- 1500ad of human kings like the olmecs, mayans, incas.
No problems for me to see the plausibility of 2x a big as our brains wirracochas developing nuclear tech. The megaliths from that age would bankrupt most countries of today if they tried to replicate them.

reply to post by avant gardener


Howdy AG

Actually no. I have extensive knowledge of nuclear reaction and isotope physics.

Hans: I find that hard to believe

There is every possibility that such isotope signatures could be the markers of nuclear bomb use.

Hans: That statement contradicts your previous statement

Of course there are other possibilities than Bombs, or cometry fragments. Nearby supernova would fit too. And that would, like bombs, produce the neutron bombardment and N13 to C14 that has been studied and plausibly fingered in post 12900bp carbon dating inconsistancies.

Hans: I believe the evidence is pointing to atmosphere meteor or cometary explosion. Soooo why are there no other sign posts of nuclear explosions? Where are the other isotopes from a nuclear explosion, please explain why you reject the Chinese weapons study?

Supernovae could possibly explain the U, Th, Ir content, but unlikely at 25x normal levels.

Hans: Why do you hold that is unlikely - have you contacted those scientists to tell them they are wrong?

Some megafaunal bones in the YDB are highly radioactive relative to other stratigraphic intervals,

Hans: Yes and if you read the entire paragraph in which it comes from the paper says they came from natural sources? Care to explain why you are cherry picking data?

I wonder about those skull types with brain pan sizes twice our current level from 30000bp america,

Hans: No such things have been found, which fringe source is telling you this?

and the relevance to widespread indigenous history of age of wiracoccas

Hans: Not sure what you mean, are your referring to Virachoa? Widespread? Exolain the term 'widespread'

with godlike tech that produced the oldest and most impossible without hi-tech megaliths like the Puma-punku ones.

Hans: Not really, you do realize that the “nuke” theory if correct meant somebody was nuking hunter-gatherers and open terrain….???? LOL

Followed in those legends by age of giants, age of barbarians, age of halfhuman halfgods, and then the latest 4000bp- 1500ad of human kings like the olmecs, mayans, incas.

Hans: Regretably you seem to be taking myth and fringe writers to seriously, those things are unevidenced

No problems for me to see the plausibility of 2x a big as our brains wirracochas developing nuclear tech.

Hans: I would think you’d have not problem at all believing that unfortunately there is no evidence for any of it.

The megaliths from that age would bankrupt most countries of today if they tried to replicate them.

Hans: Not really, who is telling you to believe all this stuff? I think you need to meet Mr. Harte and Coredrill

Quite happy to discuss the physics involved in the evidence and the plausibility this indicates towards different hypothetical scenarios that I outlined.
I believe you are reffering to the speculative comment where they said that bones can absorb radiation from surrounding minerals they are lying in. "Highly radioactive" is an unlikely description of natural sources though. Radioactivity of naturally occuring isotopes is never even called moderatelly radioactive. Thats why they use half ton ballast blocks of uranium in commercial airliners. And line tanks with armour made of the stuff.
If you are the sort of person who is carrying a lot of sourness that wishes to come out and inflict pain by attempts to abuse others mental capacities and knowledge you will only get giggles from me.
You failed even to spot the hook I placed in there about transmuting N13 to carbon 14. N13+n becomes N14. stable.
Carbon is 1% C13 on earth. C13+ n makes C14
This plus apparent naivity on the rapid decay to stable isotopes of the middle atomic weight fragments of actinide fissions. This making any isotope ratios in recent nuke bomb sites completely irrelevant .
It seems apparant that Believing that I am not aquainted with nuclear physics and that you are may be a misplaced faith in yourself.
The vitrified megaliths in places like Rennes-le-Chateau france are interesting.
www.satellitediscoveries.com...

I am surprized you appear uninformed on the cromagnon and conehead skulls from sth america and 11% of egyptian mummies etc.
I supposed exploring the Idea that high civilisation in the americas was destroyed by nuclear weapons like Americans have gone and built again is a hard thing to think rationally about by some.
I'd be far less daunted by the job of building a fission bomb than the carving of even one puma-punku megalithic block, with low tech tools btw. Very easy. Could use a micky mouse watch for a timer or even a fuse. much simpler than the ankara mechanism for sure. And the timer is the highest tech you need. lol, enriching the u235 content to twice its natural level is all you need and very easy.


[edit on 11-2-2009 by avant gardener]

reply to post by avant gardener


So AG

You still haven't explained why no scientist has notice what you say is there? Why is that? Have you contacted the scientists who wrote the paper to tell them they are wrong - and why? If not why not?

You stated:

"I wonder about those skull types with brain pan sizes twice our current level from 30000bp america"

Evidence of this, 30,000 before present huh? I asked before but didn't get a reply - why is that?

The rest of your stuff is meandering nonsense influence by non-evidenced fringe ideas. Lets start with you the two questions above.

reply to post by Byrd


I've no doubt in your expertise inthe matter however isnt it possible that everything your saying is misinformation put forth by various parties(the governments) so that people will never realize the truth, as they cant disprove all the ooparts they decide simply to outright lie in their research so "learned" people like youeself will inform the masses, covering their own asses and allowing them to benefit from the technology.

reply to post by Wolfpack Rebellion


That only requires that all the governments think alike, have the same goals and that ALL scientists don't do actual research and only report what they've told too. Every oddity I've looked at is natural or badly misinterpreted or a bad fake.

reply to post by Hanslune



Darn it Hans. I really am sad. I was hoping that you had something in your head but hot air, but no matter how much I polish my hooks till they twinkle in your eyes, and warn you about them, pointing at them with a big grin as I name them.... You just keep swallowing them without noticing. C13 is very unhappy about accepting neutrons. It will absorb their energy and pass them on much slower. C14 is made from n14 by HIGH ENERGY neutrons smashing a proton out of the N14 nucleus and replacing it there. Neutrons getting here at less than 10% lightspeed will not do this to N14.
And for that matter elemental nuclei at that speed will not come here from a supernovae due to galactic, solar, radiation belt magnetic fields deflecting them unless they are millions of times more energetic than that. So Supernova is a dead duck.
Comet(s) will only work if you accept ~ a dozen high Uranium/thorium/Plutonium ones hit canada's gt lakes region, oregon, and a simular amount, simultaneously exploded into a total of 0.5 to 2.5 million fragments that detonated specifically over the southern and eastern coastal of america, 35000, then 25000, then 12800 years ago. With 3 groups of approximate trajectories. But nowhere else on earth experienced this.
Also... You DON"T NEED TO ENRICH NATURAL URANIUM AT ALL. At usual ~0.6% U235 ratios you can, as with commercial reactors such as CANDU, simply slow down the neutrons to produce an above parity chain reaction by packing your natural uranium oxide mineral as found in nature with any combination of the following elements (listed with their effective neutron absorbancy radiuses) (Too many of the elements getting towards Hydrogen1 will suppress the expansion of numbers of fissioning U235 nuclei by absorbing Neutrons)

Periodic Table of Elements
Sorted by Cross Section (Thermal Neutron Capture)
Name Sym #
0.00019 sigmaa/barns Oxygen O 8
0.0035 sigmaa/barns Carbon C 6
0.005 deuterium
0.007 sigmaa/barns Helium He 2
0.0092 sigmaa/barns Beryllium Be 4
0.0096 sigmaa/barns Fluorine F 9
0.03 sigmaa/barns Polonium Po 84
0.034 sigmaa/barns Bismuth Bi 83
0.04 sigmaa/barns Neon Ne 10
0.063 sigmaa/barns Magnesium Mg 12
0.171 sigmaa/barns Lead Pb 82
0.171 sigmaa/barns Silicon Si 14
0.172 sigmaa/barns Phosphorus P 15
0.184 sigmaa/barns Zirconium Zr 40
0.232 sigmaa/barns Aluminum Al 13
0.3326 sigmaa/barns Hydrogen H 1

As anything but a nucleus that is real keen to fission will reject slow neutrons, this means that nothing but piling together a pile of appropriately selected chunks of stuff from under your feet is necessary for a nuclear chain reaction.
The last Ice age (just one of ~10 simular ones in the last million years, 20 million year stable one b4 that) had 80 thousand years of stable climate and sea level, 4x our current inhabitable landarea on earth, far less storms and extremities of weather than now, with many branches of the human line having bigger brains than us today. We are now in 4-5 thousand years since the climate and sealevel stabilised and we started to clime back from subsistence survival. Though we are a coastal species and can be forgiven for previously missing the fact that these coasts are swept of evidence of our previous achievements by every highstand of sealevel as we are experiencing now.... When we Get the data that lifts these veils preventing us seeing the bigger picture, we should not pretend that the beliefs of lower less informed perspectives are worth defending. Is personal pride and self esteem based on ideas with foundations washed away worth defending to the death? All the time your connection to reality becoming more and more tenuous? The more you know, the more you know you don't know friends.

reply to post by avant gardener


Well, gosh so have you contacted the writers of that article (and all the other scientists who seem to have it all wrong) and told them about it? I can point you to sites where you can try and sell this idea...but I suspect you won't go will you?

So why no evidence of what ever you think these weapons were used on? Why no evidence?

4x our current inhabitable landarea on earth,

Hans: 400% more inhabitalbe land area huh? Evidence please, I think your percentage is off a bit!

far less storms and extremities of weather than now, with many branches of the human line having bigger brains than us today.

Hans: Again provide evidence of these larger brains, Neanderthal has a slightly larger brain but your claim was:

I wonder about those skull types with brain pan sizes twice our current level from 30000bp america,

Hans: provide evidence to support this or do you retract the claim? On Neanderthals new evidence shows

1993 analysis of 118 hominid crania concluded that the cranial capacity of H.s. neandertal averaged 1412cc while that of fossil modern H.s. sapiens averaged 1487cc. See: Stanyon, R. et al. (1993). "Cranial Capacity in Hominid Evolution". Human Evolution 8 (3): 205–216.

We are now in 4-5 thousand years since the climate and sealevel stabilised and we started to clime back from subsistence survival.

Hans: Climb back, climb back from what? Your opinion is nice but don't you have any scientific evidence?

Though we are a coastal species

Hans: We aren't a coastal species, we were inland and later moved to civilizations by rivers. Later as our technology improved we started to live by coast lines. Care to list the ancient civilizations that started by the sea vs rivers? I can think of Minoans and some Peruvian for sea coast but balance that with Egypt, Hittite, Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Han, Harrappa, that grew up by rivers -

and can be forgiven for previously missing the fact that these coasts are swept of evidence of our previous achievements by every highstand of sealevel as we are experiencing now.

Hans: You don't live by the sea do you? If you did you'd know that the wave action would bring materials up on the beach. The beaches in around the Med often have pottery shards, stone tools, worked stone coming up - so where is that matterial from the alleged lost civilizations - and why were these guys so stupid as to not just move inland as the sea level rose? Plus for farming and irrigation you'd have started on inland rivers.

... When we Get the data that lifts these veils preventing us seeing the bigger picture,

Hans: What data all we have is your opinion, whatcuo got?

we should not pretend that the beliefs of lower less informed perspectives are worth defending.

Hans: Yawn, try providing some evidence genius, LOL

Is personal pride and self esteem based on ideas with foundations washed away worth defending to the death?

Hans: More nonsense from the guy with no evidence.....LOl you DO understand how science methodology works with evidence don't you?

All the time your connection to reality becoming more and more tenuous?

Hans: You could certainly use a jolt of reality - hey try finding evidence to back up the claims you've been told to believe by fringe writers... give it a try - its fun.

The more you know, the more you know you don't know friends.

Hans: So show us your evidence, you seem to be making stuff up, or more correctly blindly believing what you've been told to believe by fringe writers. Got any evidence?


[edit on 19/2/09 by Hanslune]