It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Evidence of ancient nuclear wars?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 7 2003 @ 07:34 AM
I actually didn't read it anywhere. I heard a guest speaker on talk radio who is doing post-doctural work over there on this subject.

With just a little more than a "cursory" review of sites, I stumbled on to this one...

posted on Jul, 11 2003 @ 06:30 AM
civilizition no matter what anyone says does not just always rise in a straight line up lets say a graph it rises and falls then rises again so actually the human race could have developed past were it is now but numerous things could of happened say a nulceur war that sent them back to the stone age and they had to start over again this could of happened many times and could happen again at anytime

posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 03:36 AM
If we can see the rise and fall of nationalized civilizations such as Greece, rome, Egypt, ect than the same can be assumed for a race of people who can reach a planetary system of order, the larger the civilization the more apocolyptic its demise. I believe the First ice age is a direct result of a global sociological breakdown, resulting in some form of weapon (be it nuclear or not ) being unleashed changing the atmosphere in such a way to cause an ice age

posted on Aug, 2 2003 @ 08:44 PM
During the test phase (1940s) in white sands New Mexico a side affect was found in which sand was turned into a green glass like substance. Heat from the blast I recall was what they felt caused this to happen, Gobi desert and that heated sand looking just like White sands. As I recall it would take a Nuke to turn the sand into what it had become from the artical, thus it also was asking did we have Nuclear War in the past, with signs of this glass fould worldwide?


posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 09:02 AM
Sorry to butt in on this one, but somewhere along this thread, someone mentioned that this Nuclear War theory was started at Nexus- I came across this book: Secrets of the lost races : new discoveries of advanced technology in ancient civilizations
By: Rene Noorbergen
Publisher: Indianapolis : Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1977.
ISBN: 0672522896

Now, to my knowledge 1977 means PRIOR to the interweb and the Nexus site. Anyone caring to read this book will find the referneces from the "ancient Hindu text" and surrounding stuff.

posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 11:10 AM
According to The History Channel's August 1 2004 coverage to determine whether Sodom and Gomorrah were real cities, something close to nuclear destruction happened at the edge of the Dead Sea.

Geologists reported that the layers of soil at this area show a massive earthquake at the time reported in the Bible. Additionally, Jordan geologists on the opposite side of the Dead Sea found great deposits of methane gas just beneath the surface. Methane explodes.

A great earthquake could easily cause the methane to explode and obliterate any city in the vicinity, leaving no trace.

The economy of Sodom and Gomorrah was believed to be based upon the mining and sale of asphalt to Mid Eastern and Northern African countries, which used the material as cement between stone blocks. The Egyptians transproted asphalt to use for mummification and the area around Sodom and Gormorrah's locale is the only source of asphalt.

The entire area, including Israel, is on the world's greatest fault line for earthquakes, which according to the Bible Code, is anticipated to quake again between now and 2012. Adding the earthquake to the unstable fault line would be the equivalent of nuclear war.

But not only nuclear capacity was believed to have occurred in Biblical times. The possibility of powered flight has now been proposed by scientists interviewed on The History Channel. I just received an online newsletter at with details concerning this phenomenon.


posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:20 PM
IMO all of this evidence of nuculear wars is actually from metero or steroid impact.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:23 PM
Yeah steriod impacts can be painful...

The Cockroach, you posted in this thread exactly a year to the day from the post before you! That's pretty weird, but cool...

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:44 AM
Hi Saturnine,

This is my first post to the site
Lots of fun ahead!

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Hasn't this just turned into a bundle of joy! First, to be on topic, there is no proof that many of the "asteroid craters" were made by asteroids....that's just what they are called because that is the only accepted explanation for it.

Agreed: we definitely can gain from remembering this every instant. The sclerosis of our 'educated guesses' is the author of stagnation.

now about creationism vs.'s the thing. Firstly, it is more probably that there is an intelligent being or groups of intelligent being that exist on a plane not comprehendable in the terms of our existence that could have been the source of life than it is that darwin's theory is true, for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

Once again, I feel inclined to applaud the open mind towards intelligences beyond our reach of perception, but this is not a valid challenge to Darwin's theories. I believe there is plenty of intelligence beyond that which we perceive, but Darwin's work still is a valid framework.

As for similarities, there are a lot of things that look alike and arent very related at all. Cats that look like dogs, and dogs like cats, etc...and if I remember correctly, over 90% of our DNA IS THE SAME AS A SINGLE CELLED ORGANISM! This does not support evolution, this supports the use of a blueprint, an INTELLGENT DESIGN, for life. If evolution were true, why are there no mass divergents? after all, anything probably, however unlikely, will happen, isnt that right? So there should be some sort of organism that is totally alien from all other life, just by the freak chance.

On the contrary, evolution as we currently understand it precludes the 'freak occurence' you think we should expect to see. All organisms on earth have evolved side by side, in a restricted set of conditions. None of us are islands unto ourselves. This would tend to lend a certain homegeneity to life on earth.
Saying anything will happen ignores the atmospheric and geographic conditions, which are the common factors all life on earth evolves through.

Someone here asked for proof....can anyone show me ANY proof for darwinism? I know they can't, there is none. Accepted theory is not proof, nope, sorry bub, you've been brainwashed! I'm not saying I'm right....I'm saying that your belief got it....a religion too!

Correct, there is no absolute proof for any theory we use to describe reality.

A religion of anti-religion, of anti-soul, but a religion all the same. A religion tailor-made for those who want to believe that this is all there is,so they can live without a conscience. Remember, a religion is based on faith, and faith is the belief in things that are not provable. Darwinism cannot be proven true. That things can adapt can be proven.....but not that anything can make a fundamental change from one thing to something completely different. Anyone who is willing to do unbiased, objective research will see that there is far too much design for darwin's theory.

Darwinism is not a religion of anti-religion. Granted, it is historically linked to an enormous challenge to the Church, but the work of Darwin is not a challenge to religion as a whole in and of itself.

How could an orchid with a 12 inch hole down to its pollen have survived before the moth with the 12 in nose existed? And if the moth came first, then why would the orchid have come into existence, and even if it had, how and why would the moth have survived in the meantime? Life, all of life, is contructed with immensely complex designs that mere chance can explain. And have it known that Darwin actually USED that moth/orchid example as supposed proof for his theory.....and people call that brilliant? Pretty blind, I would say.

I don't think you have understood Darwin. When someone so acclaimed appears blind to you, its a good idea to ask yourself if you have grasped him well enough to judge...
These species co-evolved. There was no clear cut 'one came before the other', only moment to moment opportunism. An explanation as good as any other for the specific example you gave could go like this:

- moths with a longer proboscis find it easier to feed in a particular area where the most abundant pollen is slightly harder to reach: they are 'selected for' and thus have a competitive edge on other moth species in the vicinity, and out breed them to a certain degree.

- the greater concentration of moths with longer probosci, whoh at this stage have formed a taste for the pollen/nectar of the flower in question, provides an advantage for the flowers with the longer tubes, effectively selecting for that mutation.

- a symbiotic link is slowly formed until both species are highly adapted to one another.

That, though, is just a tiny piece. Things that we take for granted, like vision, hearing, etc, our entire nervous system, rely on so many interconnected systems that supposed mutations can't begin to explain.

Why not?
Personally, I believe there is more to evolution than so-called random mutations (I don't believe anything is random: random is merrely a word to describe an occurence for which we do not have enough data to piece into the framework of our reality). I believe our genes are in constant dialogue with our surroundings, and adapt intelligently, if you will. There is nothing really esoteric to that: we, as organisms, are aware of the limitations of our organisms, and we arguably seek to mate with individuals who exhibit abialities we see ourselves as lacking, and which would prove useful to the environment we are subjected to. This is intelligence in action, and it directly influences the genetic makeup of our species.
This happens largely on what we might decide to call a subconscious, or instinctive level, and its hard to say just how far reaching this 'intelligence' is... There is no reason to rule out that it might be the intelligence of the planet in action, acting through us. Or the intelligence of the universe. Yet this theist approach in no way invalidates the broad tenants of Darwinism, unless I am missing something.

If the fittest survived, then why is it they just happened to also have these odd useless mutations that later became key for other mutations, not just once, but millions of times? Seems pretty organismed and well thought out, doesnt it? I'm not saying there is a god...what I am saying is that there is more than blind chance.

I agree there is more than blind chance (since I don't believe there is any room to argue blind chance even exists).
But your reasoning does not bolster this effectively: the fittest that survive do not have to only have well-adapted features. By this, I mean that their vestigial baggage does not make them necessarily unfit. They are called the 'fittest' simply because of the well-adapted features that allowed them to survive, and this says nothing of the features that fall into disuse.
When those features are needed again, hopefully, there will still be individuals in the gene pool who exhibit them strongly enough that it might be dusted off and put back into motion

And we haven't even touched the metaphysical aspects of life. And before you rush out to deny them, enlighten yourself, and you might just see your error. That we are more than just the skin that holds us all together has been proven in many ways and forms, some quite scientific. Tell me how a non-physical body evolves from nothing, will you? Thats something I REALLY want to hear.

The way I see it, we creatures manifest on more levels than we are even aware of. This perspective strongly bolsters your support for the 'metaphysical'. The main point of my post is to try to impart the sense that Darwinism does not ruffle a spiritual or metaphysical approach to life in the slightest, unless that approach is a dogmatic one. The Church reacted so negatively because they had very specific and crystallized myths to uphold as part and parcel of their cumbersome dogma. They perceived that a weakening of these myths was a weakening of their power. Those of us with more fluid and dynamic concepts of spirit need not perceive Darwinism as an enemy.

Stay well,


[edit on 7-8-2004 by upuaut]

[edit on 7-8-2004 by upuaut]

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 07:20 AM

Originally posted by HKoT
Actually the only solid evidence on earth of Nuclear activity is in the Sinai peninsula, little more than a dead zone now. As well as the two lakes near the dead sea, where Sodom and Gomora are thought to have been.

Hmmm, and the people in Sodom & Gomora were turning into pillars of salt.......

Would one be vapourised if in the middle of a nuclear blast?

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 09:54 PM
Ok. My take on all of this.

We discredit our ancient ancestors as being not as technologically advanced as us. Why is this? Simply because we have computers that can do any number of things for us. I believe we are the ones who are technologically deficient. We do not use our brains to figure things out, we punch things into a computer system to solve many of the equations that we want to find out. We are advanced in that area, the computer area.

There is proof that in Egypt, the Egyptians were designing "gliders". These gliders produced lift just like the Wright brothers aircraft, just the Wright brothers introduced the engine to aid in flight. How do we know that the ancients didnt have their own engine that they attached to these aircraft? We dont. Then there is the fact that ancient pictographs closely resemble aircraft that we have in existence today, the helicopter, planes, and UFOs. How would they know about these things unless they had them themselves or for some outlandish theory here, they saw into the future.

What proof do we have that they didnt possess the ability to produce a nuclear device? Oh, thats right, we havent found an ancient atom bomb so therefore they couldnt have built one right. Just because we dont have physical proof doesnt mean it didnt exist.

The story of Sodom and Gamora, however its spelled. Vaporization and extreme heat, both side effects of a nuclear blast. Methane explosion would explain the extreme heat but not the complete vaporization of a human. They would spontaniously combust and be on fire, but not just vaporize.

I also recall someones account that a global nuclear war in the ancient world could have brought on a nuclear winter which caused the ice age. This is something that can not be denounced because it makes perfect sense.

The fact that so many civilizations describe a battle in the sky and give eerie descriptions of what we see as UFOs today disturbes me.

I for one want to look more into the idea of there once being life on Venus, Mars and the moon and that these races were in an all out battle for power in our solar system. It would make sense.

I am going to look farther into this and many other theories about the ancient world. I for one believe that they were far more advanced then we believe. Ever think that what we are told as history is what people want us to know about history, but not the whole story? Its called selective teaching. Go anywhere in the world and you will not find two historical accounts the exact same. Take the accounts of WW2. In some countries we are portrayed as the bad guys, where in others we are the good. Its all a matter of writing what you want people to know.

posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Lysergic
The Mahabharata, an ancient Indian saga at least five thousand years old speaks of flying machines called Vimanas that were used to launch a powerful weapon of destruction; " a single projectile charged with all the power of the universe!"

Here is a reference concerning the destruction unleashed by two warring sets of adversaries: "The Earth shook, scorched by the terrible heat of this weapon. Elephants burst into flames and ran to and fro in a frenzy, seeking a protection from terror. Over a vast area other animals crumpled to the ground and died. The waters boiled, and the creatures residing therein also died. From all points of the compass the arrows of the flame rained continuously!

Later we find: "An incandescent column of smoke and fire, as brilliant as ten thousand suns rose in all its splendour. It was the unknown weapon, the iron thunderbolt, .....a gigantic messenger of death!" The effect of this weapon was that, "The corpses were so burnt that they were no longer recognisable. Hair and nails fell out. Pottery broke without cause. Birds, disturbed, circled in the air and were turned white. Foodstuffs were poisoned!"

sounds nuclear to me.

Now, this is what mis-information by pseudo-archaeologists/con men is, to sell some bloody books.

Take up any copy of The Mahabharatha, you can find english translations at sacred-texts dot com. read through fro mstart to finish.

You wont come across the texts just written up in the above quote!!

These so called texts of Mahabharatha about nucelar war had been debunked eons ago, and you folk are still harping on these???

All Blame on Hancock!!!

posted on Jan, 25 2009 @ 12:06 AM
reply to post by coredrill

Add David Hatcher Childress to that very quility list

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3   >>

log in