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.

 

1.8 Billion Year Old Nuclear Reactor In African Republic Of Gabon

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


dude, in all honesty, id usually have all the time in the world for you but quite frankly your tiresome and dont belong on ATS as it seems totally out of your field of perception why this site exists, and seriously half life? lmfao bet you just googled that one to make yourself look and feel smart, everyone knows its an indicator of the decay of materials, good god, this is the last i will respond to such drivel as it detracts from my search for more fascinating phenomena, i apologise to yourself and all the scientists who were there to irrefutably witness the makings of those natural nuclear reactors beyond a shadow of a doubt. i have my own beliefs and opinions drawn from many origins/ facts, and experiences as to the true nature of the impossible, this post was designed to be something out of the norm to get ppl interested in how much can occur on and in the earth that we DO NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND, or is every debunker blind to the TRUTH that scientific facts and theories change every day to accomodate the lack of true understanding we as a human race have right now, regardless of how much we THINK we know.
good day to you




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
It's well known in geological circles -- the one in Gabon is the most famous. There's a good Wikipedia article with some references:
en.wikipedia.org...


I remember writing a paper about this in my college chemistry class back in 1994. Our professor gave us information and we had to write a detailed paper on what it was and how we think it could happen, I needed his help because their wasn't as much information on this phenomenon (before the internet of today). I remember reading about this and them saying it was naturally occurring. I didn't think about any ancient reactor but after doing my own research on ancient mysteries and such, I question the natural process. For one I'm shocked this hasn't been replicated on other parts of the planet (it could be that we haven't found it yet) with the same conditions or better conditions. And two, time is a b***h truly. If a billion and a half years went buy after all of us tomorrow afternoon disappear, what would be left of our accomplishments. I saw the life after people series and short when it came out and after a few thousand years much of our stuff was decaying or gone and skyscrapers where falling into the ground. So in that much time ceramic/concrete etc. wouldn't be recognized as nothing but rock and the only processes left would be the material from the reactors that have been processed for fuel and still cooking after the water from the cooling pools (if they used that technology) are gone.

Look at the hover dam, eventually it would split and break open from the pressure of the water from the other side not being released or not fast enough. Then you would have remains of a concrete structure with the metal parts lying in the water or out. after 1 million years you wouldn't even think a dam was there. After a billion years that river and the land mass would have moved and such and there would be no sign or even hint of an ancient civilization called 20th century human. And for some reason that something does exists, if found it would be considered fake because of where it was found (billion years worth of silt and dirt where people of this age would say civilization couldn't have existed), most of this evidence would be buried in as I said a billion years and more of silt and soil. And three we may be looking at it but can't tell if it is natural or fake because of the age it looks like rock or is rock (stone sculpture eroded).

I will give the skeptics their do, this and other stuff doesn't say that aliens or ancient civilizations had advanced technology or visited earth or whatever but here's something think about.

1.) It's hard for some to believe that aliens came to this planet and/or exists. But at the same time some can believe that a magic being in the sky made this planet and humanity. So we have to decide either magic brought humanity into being, we where already here or aliens did. What if humanity is a more complex story that we have bits and pieces of from oral tradition and legends. If you can't believe in magic then you must believe that life exists on other planets. And if it does whats to say they didn't figure out space travel and actually come to this planet. Look at us we have sent people to the moon "supposedly" but we did send things there. Then we sent probes to mars and around this whole system. We are taking our first steps out into space. The reason why we are still stuck using rocket tech from the 60's and early 70's is because their are people on this planet in power that don't believe in essentially science and what it's doing to their powerbase/religion. Also others don't believe that space is a place for humanity to be or to go. If we had a population that was committed to this new science and paradigm, then we would have bases and/or colonization on the moon and better rocket science. Whats to say these aliens weren't more committed to going out to space than our leaders.

2.) Look at us supposedly 6,000 years of civilization, thats it 6,000 years. Everything sure fits a nice tight package with a BIG FAT ETHNOCENTRIC BOW on the outside of the package. We are finding out that civilization is getting older and older as more digging is done and stuff is found (like the one place in Turkey where it was a complex village built up with walls and such at least 10,000 years old, which we shouldn't have had animal husbandry). Why didn't this "spark" of civilization happen before like 30,000 years ago or longer. Did this spark of civilization have to be with Homosapiens us back so long ago. If you look at Gigantopythasus, neanderthal, both branches of hominid was horribly strong and in Gigantopythasus was at least 8 feet tall. And yet they lost out in the fight for supremacy of this planet. It's real easy to say they where dumb or not as intelligent as homosapiens. But as with apes being able learn and observe, we can too. And they could also, on top of being really strong and extremely tall. And we know that the neanderthal knew how to make objects and draw, but yet we one out. We won out between at least these hominids, we won out trying to survive in the Megafauna age where almost all animals where to large to mess with unless hurt or dead. Somewhere down the line our history of the hominids is flawed and at one time or more (billion and a half natural reactor) humanity or another species (ever wondered why no sauron species (raptors or another) or dinosaur ever became sentient (could they have been the reptilians)) had advanced to a level that we forgot or don't remember.

What we are I believe is a species that is a survivor of a major cataclysm that washed away much of the history of hominids at least (won't say about the billion years), and we are just picking and choosing what is worth studying and what is not worth studying that fits that paradigm. I always here that they say that the usual Daniken, Hancock, Cremo and others just pick and chose what fits their theory, that may be true or not. But whats never never questioned or attempted to be asked is questioning the academics about their works, truly. They almost look like you asked them to cut off both arms. People always question the ones that question Mainstream. But the MS academia do pick and choose in order to fit their theory or thesis, it's just natural. Because in some or many of their minds who is going to truly look over with a fine tooth comb the theory of snail movement to moon positioning (making a point), and if so they will be encumbered because they won't know where or what data is the problem since it may be to obscure. Also they try to focus on their particular field like looking at the tree while the forests is around you. If they look and hypothesis that moss grow on one side of the tree all the time and then look around and see moss growing on the side of another tree 180 from what you said, your theory is shot and you wasted time. thats why they focus on their own little made world and theories.

There afraid of looking up and seeing something that without a doubt makes there theory moot at best.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Man people will come up with ALL kinds of tales to tell from perfectly benign evidence and artifacts. I S &F this thread for the pleasure it brought me in an entertaining fashion. 1 Billion year old nuclear reactors? the idea that anccient man would or could utilize such an advanced technology is laughable at best. I truly dont believe that ancient civilisations once ruled the world with the high forms of science that would have appeared as magic to a less developed race of man. I think that either the evidence is wrongly intepreted or mis-identified in either its function or its true age. Im open to alot of possibilites but on this subject I draw my line in the sand and say..HERE I WILL NOT CROSS!!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by dreadphil
 


well dude, glad could at least entertain you, never hurts to think outside of the box, but ive done my job as long as someone atleast finds something new from this, thanks for the S+F squire,



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hoghead cheese
 


you clearly put a lot of thought to this, sad that you will get around 3-4 call you crazy shortly, especially since i see your signature is a site i hyperlinked earlier which came under more scrutiny than i personally think it deserved. but yes indeed theres so much that we currently just can't know for certain, postulating on any theory is at the very least entertaining, especially when you think, would take just one piece of unexplained evidence to be true and the world as we know it would be turned on its head with the implications,ah well, glad it got you thinking again on the subject, many thanks,
peace



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   
if the radioactive material hasnt travelled out side the natuarl structure can we learn something about nuclear waste storage ? could this be a place to store nuclear waste safely?

it would be great to think that it is artificial, from reading the epoch times you would think it was.
but after reading some comments about the water not being so important in creating the reaction my alien bubble is burst!

I still have the NASA footage of the teather with weird notched circular translutient light emitting space stuff moving about....



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by scolog
 


hey man, good thinking, if it shields radioactivity so well it does appear to be one of the safest places for putting waste, but as far as the alien bubble is concerned man, dont be discouraged, theres way to many pieces of actual out of place evidence to say that these theoireis are unfounded, the pieces dont add up, even if we arent putting them all together at the moment doesnt mean we wont. theres not more out there than we imagine, theres more than we CAN imagine in the words of the late, great Arthur C Clarke!
peace



posted on Nov, 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Interesting information about the nuclear reaction constantly going on under our feet, in the core and mantle.

Source: World Nuclear Organization


However, the primary source of energy driving the convection in the mantle is the radioactive decay of uranium, thorium and potassium. In the present Earth, most of the energy generated is from the decay of U-238 (c 10-4 watt/kg). At the time of the Earth's formation, however, decay of both U-235 and K-40 would have been subequal in importance and both would have exceeded the heat production of U-238.


and...


Measurements of heat have led to estimates that the Earth is generating between 30 and 44 terawatts of heat, much of it from radioactive decay. Measurements of antineutrinos have provisionally suggested that about 24 TW arises from radioactive decay. Professor Bob White provides the more recent figure of 17 TW from radioactive decay in the mantle. This compares with 42-44 TW heat loss at the Earth's surface from the deep Earth. The balance comes from changes in the core. (There is very much greater heat loss arising from incident solar radiation, which is quite distinct.)


The natural reactor in Gabon is just a particle isolated from what is really going on...
edit on 27-11-2011 by charlyv because: Spelling and clarity



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join