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.


The Ancient Nukes Question: Were There WMD’s in Prehistoric Times?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:16 PM

Originally posted by pavmas
reply to post by nighthawk1954

I know that 10,000 years ago Scotland was Nuked. damage found could only be caused by a nuclear bomb and nothing else, the proof is there for all to see.

10,000 years ago in Scotland? Was this before or after the glaciers retreated?

Perhaps you mean the iron age vitrified forts? You are saying the vitrification of the forts was caused by Celtic warlords having a nuclear war - using weapons that vitrified the walls, but otherwise left everything intact? Hmmm, OK.

This is an excellent summary:
edit on 13/2/13 by FatherLukeDuke because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:47 PM
reply to post by nighthawk1954

Goodyear's 2001 paper was trying to explain why fossils from the younger dryas boundary show signs of exposure to high energy charged particles,,the kind of particles that were once thought only occur on earth due to super novas and or nuclear reactions. It was only after the 2001 paper was published that it was discovered that samples from the Tunguska event show the same evidence of exposure to high energy charged particles.
I don't believe that Goodyear ever intended for people to think he was advocating for an ancient atomic war.
In the last dozen years Goodyear's work has been focused on a younger dryas impact event, or " The Clovis Comet", a fairly large comet/asteroid broke up above the laurentide ice sheet 13k years ago, that had far ranging implications for the subsequent development peoples and cultures around the world.

Developing atomic weapons is an endeavor that requires a world wide industrial age society.

The manhattan project employed 130,000 people at 30 sites in the us and used 1/3 of all of the electricity used in the US, to produce 4 bombs.

Ancient atomic war is even more unlikely than ancient alien contact.

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by Flavian

Armchair scientists can debunk things until the cows come home, but the fact remains that humans on Earth had a technologically advanced society and then there was some great cataclysm. This is the only reason we find out of place artifacts. We may never know if our ancestors could split an atom or not with 100% certainty, but we have found lings like fossilized spark plugs and evidence of micro-technology: Ancient nano technology found in Russia

~edit~ there are quite a few evidences of ancient technology that have come to light, a difficult task when our history is being rigorously suppressed, but conspiracies in archeology is another thread... refrences to ancient technology, another link, and another,
this link list could go on...
edit on 14-2-2013 by Invariance because: added see ~edit~

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:20 AM
reply to post by Invariance

Sorry but the sources you linked to are full of easily debunked fringe archeology. They have been discussed on here ad nauseum over the years - search is your friend if you wish to find out more.

Ancient humans had the same brains we have - they were just as clever as us. However, they didn't take things far enough for serious technological advancement. For example, Hero developed a steam engine (aeolipile) somewhere between 10 - 70AD. However, whilst it was an extraordinary bout of scientific achievement, it could only be made in small scale and it didn't work for long, basically because manufacturing and refining techniques were sufficiently advanced to make cast iron or steel that could withstand the pressures generated (pipes cracked).

The most extraordinary ancient artifact is the Antikythera Mechanism. The sophistication and skill required to both develop such machinery and then to achieve such extraordinary accuracy for its astronomical accuracy wasn't matched until the 19th century. There are a myriad of reasons why such technology never developed - war, death and destruction being just some of them.

Basically, you are free to believe whatever you desire - it is entirely your choice. For me though, i will stick to verifiable facts. For me, fringe archeology is interesting in that it opens up the realm of "what if's". Until science can verify some of the claims though, they always remain "what if's" rather than fact.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by skalla
Interesting OP

i've yet to see any hard evidence on the ancient nukes question that really stood up to the test, Mohenjo Daro being a classic case as all the info on it being irradiated has no proper source that can be found. everything goes back in a circle to childress, coppens etc. there are no reports by scientists or archaeologists or non "AA" media whatsoever. the small amount of fused material that we can prove was found there is likely the result of some so-far unknown industrial or geological process. i'd love to see a good source for the MD claims as they fascinate me but i always come back to the same lack of source

the post you made on north america was interesting too but surely does not need to be the result of a nuclear explosion.. i would love to hear a physicist shed light on why this could happen naturally.

reply to post by pavmas

Do you mean the vitrified forts? these do exist elsewhere as well and temperatures of "only" about 600 degrees or so could work to produce that effect. given that the vitrification occurs in patches and to varying degrees, i think it's far more likely that humans did it for some reason and believe that it could have been achieved only using "primitive" technology (eg: wood, clay, peat etc)
Arthur C Clarke did try to reproduce this effect, and failed.. but i expect our ancestors had a lot more skill, patience and opportunity to practice than he did.

If I remember right a few years ago I looked right into this, the nuclear damage could only have been done with an atom bomb such as the nuclear bombs we have now,

Even natural nuclear explosions could not mimic the same effects that man made nukes can,
The concencus was that Scotland had a nuclear attack 10,000 years ago.

Dont know who did it but it did happen.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 03:38 PM
This is somewhat off-topic, but a little bit related. I thought it was interesting, anyway. Basically, a little over a billion years ago, a huge natural nuclear reactor formed in Africa and ran for a few hundred thousand years before burning itself out. That's pretty amazing. I can believe that SOME (not all) had profound technology in ancient times. For me that is well within the realm of possibility.
edit on 2/21/2013 by calmbeforethestorm because: Typo

edit on 2/21/2013 by calmbeforethestorm because: Typo

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in