Radioactivity in the past

[Ronald Hyde]

Just to say that I do remember that the 'Gabon reactor' that occurred about 1.5 billion hears ago could happen because volcanic steam

had deposited uranium oxide of enough purity that the reaction could occur. I've only heard of this single event happening.

[EquisDeXD]

"the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?". Do people just not like reading these days or what? "

Nope it is not. The topic is clearly written at the top of the page. It says "Radioactivity in the past" and I already quoted the OP.

The answer to the new question is "nothing: that's why there's no evidence of one having happened."

Even if a random given theory is highly improbable, I don't see how merely that rules out the possibility of the event itself, that's like saying that just because Dalton though atoms were solid objects with neutral charge means atoms don't exist. Even if my speculations were not in fact related to the cause, what your saying doesn't rule out that that atomic explosion could have happened, in merely suggests that what I am suggesting the cause for an atomic explosion is improbable.

There's evidence that some sort of nuclear event happened, there's high levels of radiation, large numbers of skeletons, and the skeletons have much higher than usual levels radiation, and hieroglyphs or at least paintings of some sort from near the same location in ancient India that depicts a very large explosion killing many people and making survivors sick. As I said before, I don't know if it was an atomic explosion, but the evidence seems to suggest it could have been one, so I want to know how an atomic explosion can occur without nuclear weapons on Earth. I really don't understand why its so difficult to investigate physics on a science forum.

Edited October 13, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

It's easy to investigate science, You start by objectively collecting evidence, and then you look at what might ave caused that.

So you look at the (rather flaky) record of a lot of people getting sick and dying and you say "the sad fact is that for most of human existence, plagues, poisonings and such mean that was quite a common event"

 

You don't start by asking if it was due to some intrinsically improbable event like a nuclear explosion for exactly the same reason that you don't assume it was due to an attack by a herd of unicorns.

 

If there's evidence of a bog explosion then you look at the realistically probable causes of explosions.

At that time a meteor "strike" would be the only real candidate.

So you see if the evidence fits that- and it does.

 

Then you look at the radiation levels and you note that "normal" radiation levels are enormously variable and it's perfectly reasonable to think that the high levels in that area are natural.

And, you seem to have missed my point when you say " what your saying doesn't rule out that that atomic explosion could have happened, ".

Actually, it does rule it out.

You can't enrich the uranium.

[EquisDeXD]

It's easy to investigate science, You start by objectively collecting evidence, and then you look at what might ave caused that.

So you look at the (rather flaky) record of a lot of people getting sick and dying and you say "the sad fact is that for most of human existence, plagues, poisonings and such mean that was quite a common event"

They were common, but how many records depict this? If you look at ancient christian or hebrew accounts for the lost Ark, it's one of the only accounts in which people suffered what appeared to be the exact symptoms of radiation poisoning, uranium lasts millions of years, and it's not the only radioactive material, it's really not impossible for ancient civilizations to have contact with it in some way.

 

You don't start by asking if it was due to some intrinsically improbable event like a nuclear explosion for exactly the same reason that you don't assume it was due to an attack by a herd of unicorns.

There's no evidence unicorns were involved, there was no ancient piece tablet that depicted a heard of unicorns in the same area, no documentation of hoof marks, no horse hair, no evidence that unicorns exist or even that they are radioactive in mythology.

 

If there's evidence of a bog explosion then you look at the realistically probable causes of explosions.

At that time a meteor "strike" would be the only real candidate.

So you see if the evidence fits that- and it does.

Not just a big explosion, but a big explosion that leaves a field of a distinct radioactive glass that is normally seen as the result of an atomic explosion as well as highly radioactive corpses and one that makes survivors severely sick afterwords. Volcanoes do leave glass, but not high levels of radiation and normally never red trinitite, and by normal I mean an average amount on the surface of Earth, most highly radioactive materials are in labs or buried deep underground.

 

Then you look at the radiation levels and you note that "normal" radiation levels are enormously variable and it's perfectly reasonable to think that the high levels in that area are natural.

I would think that, but it's not the only instance in in the world, there are other places in the world with a very similar circumstance such as in Libya: large field of red radioactive trinitite.

 

And, you seem to have missed my point when you say " what your saying doesn't rule out that that atomic explosion could have happened, ".

Actually, it does rule it out.

You can't enrich the uranium.

It doesn't really rule it out whether you want it to or not. The fact is, there is a distinct pattern that normally only atomic bombs leave that was dated back to before atomic bombs were created, and I haven't seen any evidence to support that it couldn't have possibly been an atomic blast of some sort. Enriched uranium is a concentration of a particular isotope of uranium that can cause nuclear reactions with enough mass of it, I haven't any seen evidence to suggest that it is impossible to compress raw uranium materials either in the form of ore or specimens from outer-space to create the critical density necessarily for such an explosion in a random pocket or that it can't be filtered through some other rare natural process. I can agree that it may easily be highly improbable, but this event of seeming atomic bombs detonated in the past hasn't occurred too often either, it's not a typical meteor explosion if it was one.

Edited October 13, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Ophiolite]

Firstly, John Cuthber precisely expresses my own view in post #25. Thank you John.

 

 

Equis, you say this in one post:

The topic isn't "did an atomic explosion happen?", the topic is "what can cause an atomic explosion on Earth besides nuclear weapons?".

Then you say this:

There's evidence that some sort of nuclear event happened, there's high levels of radiation, large numbers of skeletons, and the skeletons have much higher than usual levels radiation, and hieroglyphs or at least paintings of some sort from near the same location in ancient India that depicts a very large explosion killing many people and making survivors sick.

 

Please make up your frigging mind! And please, do you have any decent citations? What you have offered is either irrelevant (I've pointed out that glass could be formed by means other than nuclear explosion) or from lightweight sites.

 

Edit: I've just noticed that the content of the second site you linked to is 50% an extract from a book by David Icke! We have been spending our time discussing an event based upon the words of David Icke. Ridiculous! Please start treating this issue seriously. At present you are setting yourself up to be a laughing stock.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Ophiolite

[mississippichem]

Edit: I've just noticed that the content of the second site you linked to is 50% an extract from a book by David Icke! We have been spending our time discussing an event based upon the words of David Icke. Ridiculous! Please start treating this issue seriously. At present you are setting yourself up to be a laughing stock.

 

You clearly work for the reptillian aliens. You're trying to cover up their ancient nuclear bomb experiments. Stop spreading your dogma on the human race!

[ACG52]

There's evidence that some sort of nuclear event happened, there's high levels of radiation, large numbers of skeletons, and the skeletons have much higher than usual levels radiation, and hieroglyphs or at least paintings of some sort from near the same location in ancient India that depicts a very large explosion killing many people and making survivors sick

 

Would it be too much to ask for a link to this alleged evidence? Hopefully something real, and not a crank site.

 

on edit: I see that you'd already linked to forbiddeninfo.com. that's the definition of a crank site.

Edited October 14, 2012 by ACG52

[EquisDeXD]

Firstly, John Cuthber precisely expresses my own view in post #25. Thank you John.

 

 

Equis, you say this in one post:

Then you say this:

 

 

Please make up your frigging mind! And please, do you have any decent citations? What you have offered is either irrelevant (I've pointed out that glass could be formed by means other than nuclear explosion) or from lightweight sites.

There's nothign to make up my mind about, I NEVER said I wanted evidence that an atomic explosion happened, I already assume it's a possibility.

 

Edit: I've just noticed that the content of the second site you linked to is 50% an extract from a book by David Icke! We have been spending our time discussing an event based upon the words of David Icke. Ridiculous! Please start treating this issue seriously. At present you are setting yourself up to be a laughing stock.

 

I don't know who David Icke is (and there's more than one site suggesting the atomic blast theory anyway), but I'm not setting myself up for anything because you can go to India and see the physical evidence for yourself, and so far NO ONE has offered ANY evidence to suggest my speculations are even impossible, just that it could only rarely occur which by the way this field of red trinitite doesn't occur naturally on it's own very often so the probabilities match up anyway, let alone that there isn't any evidence from anyone that suggests raw uranium materials in certain ores or meteors can't be compressed to create critical density of uranium 235. If someone can even prove or provide a lot of evidence that uranium in ore can't be compressed to create a critical density of uranium 235 which seems pretty plausible to me anyway, all that does is rule out that specific possibility, it in no way rules out the general possibility of some kind of atomic explosion.

 

 

Would it be too much to ask for a link to this alleged evidence? Hopefully something real, and not a crank site.

 

on edit: I see that you'd already linked to forbiddeninfo.com. that's the definition of a crank site.

 

Other than the links I posted, sure, find an episode of the History channel called something like "Aliens in the Past".

 

I don't know if most of you claim to be scientists in any way shape or form, but something caused highly radioactive fields of red trinitite in an area where many highly radioactive skeletons were found which match ancient depictions of a big explosion and there was no documented nuclear testing in that region and on top of all that there was an ancient tablet that matched a catastrophic event from the same region whether people want to admit it or not, there's clearly some evidence that an atomic explosion could have happened.

 

I think actually nuclear explosions can also produce green trinitite as well.

http://www.scribd.co...s-Produce-Glass

Wikipedia says its red, this site says its green, but neither site rule out the possibility that it can be red or green, so...

Also

"Faced with these findings, scientists consider the mine to be a "naturally occurring" nuclear reactor"

"V"

I don't want to jump to ahead, I don't know how credible this source is, but I don't really expect anyone to say "it's not credible just because of some aspect of the site I arbitrary don't like" either.

http://www.bibliotec...oindian%20Times

Some action in North America and Egypt too? Could have been a normal meteor in some cases too, not saying it's impossible, but there's no impact crater.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Ophiolite]

So far you have failed to provide any acceptable evidence at all. You make claims and assertions without providing a single shred of peer reviewed research to support those assertions. You have been asked repeatedly to provide such evidence, yet all you do is repeat the assertions as if they were true. Science does not work that way.

 

For your information Icke believes the world is ruled by lizard people, amongst whom is Queen Elizabeth. His support of any hypothesis is a pretty good indicator it is bogus. All you have to do convince us this is worth looking at further is provide some solid evidence.

[EquisDeXD]

So far you have failed to provide any acceptable evidence at all. You make claims and assertions without providing a single shred of peer reviewed research to support those assertions. You have been asked repeatedly to provide such evidence, yet all you do is repeat the assertions as if they were true. Science does not work that way.

Ok, I provided multiple links, and I don't see a degree that says you can determine their credibilities, but I also said to go watch the history channel, that's what this whole topic was started from, unless the History channel is completely un credible, even though it never actually stated aliens were actually here in the past anyway.

 

For your information Icke believes the world is ruled by lizard people, amongst whom is Queen Elizabeth. His support of any hypothesis is a pretty good indicator it is bogus. All you have to do convince us this is worth looking at further is provide some solid evidence.

 

Go watch the f'n history channel like I said. Also, religion doesn't impair cognitive thinking, I'm atheist and I found his religious notion absolutely crazy, but I don't think that just because someone believes in a particular religion means they are in any way stupid or mentally retarded as believing in a religion like I said does not impair cognitive abilities. Religion isn't about how smart you are, it's about how connected you feel to an idea, and that's why even scientists can be religious. If you have evidence that maybe he has mercury poisoning, then I'll re-consider his if he's crazy, but other than that there's some bad people that claim to be scientific. Generally the democratic party supports things like evolution and has a larger percentage of non-religious people, but you know Ed Schultz is basically the liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, and then there's those neo-evolutionist psychopaths who definitely don't believe in the kind words of Jesus and would probably be categorized as atheists. The reputation game to me doesn't have a place in science, it's politics, if something has evidence then it has evidence, if something's logical then it's logical. Before Newton was famous he himself was the laughing stock of the scientific community, and Einstein failed high school.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Ophiolite]

This (I hope) will be my last post to you. Initially I thought you were just an enthusiastic person who in their enthusiasm was allowing themselves to be blinded to the facts. After your last remarkable, truly remarkable, post I see I was mistaken and I now understand why efforts to communicate with you failed.

 

Ok, I provided multiple links

The links were either about points not in dispute (e.g. Trinitite) or were from sites whose reputation for rigorous review of evidence is close to zero. Despite repeated requests you have provided not a single primary source to substantiate the 'facts' which you are asking us to comment on.

 

but I also said to go watch the history channel, that's what this whole topic was started from, unless the History channel is completely un credible

The History Channel is an entertainment channel. Their objective is bums on seats. They often present information in the most intriguing, mysterious way to entice and interest their audience. I watch and enjoy many programs on the channel, but I certainly look for independent verification of any 'facts' they raise that I am interested in.

 

and I don't see a degree that says you can determine their credibilities

I hold an honours degree in geology from a top university. More to the point one of my responsibilities is to teach critical thinking and scepticism to engineers and scientists. So yes, I am qualified to determine the credibility of sources and yours stink.

 

Go watch the f'n history channel like I said. Also, religion doesn't impair cognitive thinking, ......<ramble, waffle, word salad>.........but other than that there's some bad people that claim to be scientific.

Irrelevant. The body of work produced by Icke clearly demonstrates nothing he says should be given any weight at all.

 

The reputation game to me doesn't have a place in science, it's politics, if something has evidence then it has evidence

And Icke has no frigging evidence and you have no frigging evidence. I will say this for Icke, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you.

 

Before Newton was famous he himself was the laughing stock of the scientific community, and Einstein failed high school.

These were the two straws. I will not waste any more time debating with a gullible cipher.

 

Newton was never the laughing stock of the scientific community. After he graduated with his Bachelor's degree he was certainly unknown. Two years of independent study during the closure of Oxford by plague led to brilliant insights and two years later he was appointed mathematics professor. Where is the laughing stock there? This addled notion seems to come from the same sort of place you acquire your other bizarre ideas.

And here is wikipedia on Einstein's high school exams taken at the age of 17. In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades (including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6

[EquisDeXD]

This (I hope) will be my last post to you. Initially I thought you were just an enthusiastic person who in their enthusiasm was allowing themselves to be blinded to the facts. After your last remarkable, truly remarkable, post I see I was mistaken and I now understand why efforts to communicate with you failed.

All you have to do is accept the fact that your initial assumption is wrong and that there is a possibility that an atomic explosion can happen by means you didn't expect.

 

The links were either about points not in dispute (e.g. Trinitite) or were from sites whose reputation for rigorous review of evidence is close to zero. Despite repeated requests you have provided not a single primary source to substantiate the 'facts' which you are asking us to comment on.

I can accept that some of the links weren't as credible, but it still remains that I did in fact provide at least some evidence form those sites. Icke only supported the conspiracy that aliens were involved in the past, the atomic explosion was merely a motive, he literally could have used any motive as evidence.

 

The History Channel is an entertainment channel.

Ok, first off that's why I said IN THE FIRST POST that a lot of it was subject to interpretation, but Nova is also an entertainment channel but that doesn't mean Einstein didn't formulate relativity just because that was stated on Nova, when they say "it looks like a UFO in an old Christian painting, it's possible aliens were involved", that's skeptical, but actual documented cases of something I visually saw and can see and can travel to and can measure myself isn't subject to interpretation, it's a real physical object, you might as well say the sky isn't blue because it was filmed on an entertainment program.

 

Their objective is bums on seats.

Who in the right mind would ever target the demographic of bums? They have no money.

 

They often present information in the most intriguing, mysterious way to entice and interest their audience. I watch and enjoy many programs on the channel, but I certainly look for independent verification of any 'facts' they raise that I am interested in.

Well to tell you the truth, there's a hell of a lot more support for the alien conspiracy on the internet than the History channel, and physicists at lecture raise interest themselves, are you going to say they are all wrong too? I went to some Brian Cox lecture, what he said was vague, that there exists a possibility of dark matter, but that doesn't mean that just because he was using that as a method to draw people in that there isn't the possibility of dark matter, you essentially can't make money in the media industry without giving in to something.

 

I hold an honours degree in geology from a top university. More to the point one of my responsibilities is to teach critical thinking and scepticism to engineers and scientists. So yes, I am qualified to determine the credibility of sources and yours stink.

So since your qualified, you can go to India and Libya and approve the evidence yourself.

 

Irrelevant. The body of work produced by Icke clearly demonstrates nothing he says should be given any weight at all.

It's not irrelavant, "reputation" has no scientific correlation, an arbitrary view, and nothing more than an opinion, which most certainly isn't scientific.

 

 

And Icke has no frigging evidence and you have no frigging evidence. I will say this for Icke, he's a hell of a lot smarter than you.

First off you don't have scientific evidence that quantifies the smartness so that you can say that either one has a particular greater quantity of it, and second, Icke supports the alien conspiracy theory of aliens in the past and merely uses the Trinitite formation as evidence.

 

Newton was never the laughing stock of the scientific community. After he graduated with his Bachelor's degree he was certainly unknown. Two years of independent study during the closure of Oxford by plague led to brilliant insights and two years later he was appointed mathematics professor. Where is the laughing stock there? This addled notion seems to come from the same sort of place you acquire your other bizarre ideas.

And here is wikipedia on Einstein's high school exams taken at the age of 17. In September 1896, he passed the Swiss Matura with mostly good grades (including a top grade of 6 in physics and mathematical subjects, on a scale of 1-6

Says here in my book called "Great Scientists" that Newton faced great doubt from the entire scientific community when presenting his theory on the the composition of white light, and he actually kept calculus a secret for around 20 years because he knew his reputation could easily be damaged and didn't want to deal with it.

And really? Your going to criticize me for using unreliable sources then use wikipedia when I can read in multiple books that he didn't do well in school and even had mild dyslexia? He even failed the entrance exams when he applied to a college in Switzerland.

 

If you go to the site in Rajasthan, India, you WILL see a field of Trinitite and along with an excavation of a large number of highly radioactive corpses, I bet my entire reputation on it. There's credible links that say Trinitite can easily be the by-product of an atomic blast, that's essentially DIRECT evidence that an atomic blast of some sort is possibly responsible. Also, since your not posting any more, I guess you won't be able to prove that

http://www.scribd.co...s-Produce-Glass

isn't actually a credible link, because I don't see evidence it isn't.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

Just for the record, it is known (and reasonably well documented) that bones, because of their high phosphate content are good at scavenging uranium from the soil they are buried in. The same phenomenon is a problem for the phosphate fertiliser industry where they have to strip uranium from the phosphoric acid they make.

 

Radioactive skeletons are not evidence of anything apart from the insolubility of uranium phosphate.

 

Re Icke's smarttness, the discussion reminded me of this exchange from the comedy sho Blackadder

"Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.

Edmund: Mm! ... What?

Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.

Edmund: And what's that, exactly?

Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.

Edmund: I see. And what about it?

Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.

Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?

Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.

Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?

Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.

Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.

Percy: No, My Lord.

Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.

Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord."

 

"There's credible links that say Trinitite can easily be the by-product of an atomic blast, that's essentially DIRECT evidence that an atomic blast of some sort is possibly responsible. "

 

Or not, since there is (as I explained) no credible explanation of an atomic blast.

 

You might also wish to consider the basis on which the Oklo phenomenon was recognised as being the site of an ancient reactor.

The first one was the presence of a disturbance in the isotope ratio for uranium.

They subsequently looked and found other consistent patterns of elements that are produced by such a reaction.

This sort of thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield

Now, just as soon as you show us something like that for the glass in India, you will have some evidence of nuclear fission.

Until then you have no evidence.

 

(and citing Icke as a credible source should have a law named after it like Godwin's law).

[EquisDeXD]

Just for the record, it is known (and reasonably well documented) that bones, because of their high phosphate content are good at scavenging uranium from the soil they are buried in. The same phenomenon is a problem for the phosphate fertiliser industry where they have to strip uranium from the phosphoric acid they make.

 

Radioactive skeletons are not evidence of anything apart from the insolubility of uranium phosphate.

I know that there are random pockets in which radiation can be higher than normal for whatever reason, but supposedly the radioactivity of the skeletons was comparable to those of Hiroshima, but I suppose without further knowledge of exactly how much of what radiation that it can't be determined.

 

Re Icke's smarttness, the discussion reminded me of this exchange from the comedy sho Blackadder

"Percy: You know, they do say that the Infanta's eyes are more beautiful than the famous Stone of Galveston.

Edmund: Mm! ... What?

Percy: The famous Stone of Galveston, My Lord.

Edmund: And what's that, exactly?

Percy: Well, it's a famous blue stone, and it comes ... from Galveston.

Edmund: I see. And what about it?

Percy: Well, My Lord, the Infanta's eyes are bluer than it, for a start.

Edmund: I see. And have you ever seen this stone?

Percy: (nods) No, not as such, My Lord, but I know a couple of people who have, and they say it's very very blue indeed.

Edmund: And have these people seen the Infanta's eyes?

Percy: No, I shouldn't think so, My Lord.

Edmund: And neither have you, presumably.

Percy: No, My Lord.

Edmund: So, what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.

Percy: (finally begins to grasp) Yes, My Lord."

Again, I don't care about whatever religion he has.

 

Or not, since there is (as I explained) no credible explanation of an atomic blast.

There's no confirming information that it was an atomic blast, but there's no confirming information that it was anything else that even the best geologists in the world though of either. Meteor? No impact crater. Volcano? None that I see. Fireball? Eh, maybe if the physics can be proven that it's possible for a fireball to do such a thing.

 

 

 

 

Now, just as soon as you show us something like that for the glass in India, you will have some evidence of nuclear fission.

Until then you have no evidence.

There's still the actual FILM FOOTAGE from the history channel of the trip to the Indus valley, and there's these.

 

http://www.ceveni.co...in-ancient.html

This has more detail on the event, it's not direct evidence of trinitite, but it does mention a field of glass or crystalline substances, and trinitite is a glass. The youtube video, I know know it's saying that the people actually traveled to the moon as in it agrees there's a conspiracy, or if they are merely translating the ancient documents of which throughout human history there are such random accounts of things like battles in the sky and beings from space.

 

http://beforeitsnews...bs-2442710.html

I can't seem to get the exact word "trinitite", but "fields of green-yellowish glass" seems like a pretty good match throughout a number of different sources, I think Trinitite is a western term because it's the name given to the mineral after it was found as the result of the first atomic bomb tested which was in New Mexico, known as Trinity.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

I know that there are random pockets in which radiation can be higher than normal for whatever reason, but supposedly the radioactivity of the skeletons was comparable to those of Hiroshima, but I suppose without further knowledge of exactly how much of what radiation that it can't be determined.

 

 

Again, I don't care about whatever religion he has.

 

 

There's no confirming information that it was an atomic blast, but there's no confirming information that it was anything else that even the best geologists in the world though of either. Meteor? No impact crater. Volcano? None that I see. Fireball? Eh, maybe if the physics can be proven that it's possible for a fireball to do such a thing.

 

 

 

 

 

There's still the actual FILM FOOTAGE from the history channel of the trip to the Indus valley, and there's these.

 

http://www.ceveni.co...in-ancient.html

This has more detail on the event, it's not direct evidence of trinitite, but it does mention a field of glass or crystalline substances, and trinitite is a glass. The youtube video, I know know it's saying that the people actually traveled to the moon as in it agrees there's a conspiracy, or if they are merely translating the ancient documents of which throughout human history there are such random accounts of things like battles in the sky and beings from space.

 

http://beforeitsnews...bs-2442710.html

I can't seem to get the exact word "trinitite", but "fields of green-yellowish glass" seems like a pretty good match throughout a number of different sources, I think Trinitite is a western term because it's the name given to the mineral after it was found as the result of the first atomic bomb tested which was in New Mexico, known as Trinity.

 

 

You do realize that meteors do not necessarily leave craters don't you? They can detonate above ground and the results are very much like a nuclear explosion...

[EquisDeXD]

You do realize that meteors do not necessarily leave craters don't you? They can detonate above ground and the results are very much like a nuclear explosion...

 

Meteors usually do leave an impact crater on land or they explode and disintegrate in the atmosphere which is why the theory is a problem, but the physics has yet to be proven that a meteor could produce such a large area of molten glass and heat enough up exactly just before hitting the ground so that previous thermal energy wasn't lost to the air over such a large area without leaving a crater or without being big enough to leave any other marks. It would have to be a big meteor to make it that near to the ground and not completely disintegrate in the atmosphere, but it would also have to explode nearly perfectly outward and into perfectly small pieces that were all small enough to all completely disintegrate just before hitting the ground in a radial blast to heat up the air over such a large area for the temperature hot enough to melt solid rock to occur, but if it's that big and it exploded why aren't there any pieces left? Why no smaller impact craters? And what about all the radioactivity?

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Moontanman]

Meteors usually do leave an impact crater on land or they explode and disintegrate in the atmosphere which is why the theory is a problem, but the physics has yet to be proven that a meteor could produce such a large area of molten glass and heat enough up exactly just before hitting the ground so that previous thermal energy wasn't lost to the air over such a large area without leaving a crater or without being big enough to leave any other marks. It would have to be a big meteor to make it that near to the ground and not completely disintegrate in the atmosphere, but it would also have to explode nearly perfectly outward and into perfectly small pieces that were all small enough to all completely disintegrate just before hitting the ground in a radial blast to heat up the air over such a large area for the temperature hot enough to melt solid rock to occur, but if it's that big and it exploded why aren't there any pieces left? Why no smaller impact craters? And what about all the radioactivity?

 

 

Tunguska come to mind.... The Earth has natural radioactivity, dinosaur bones, for instance, are often radioactive and this has been used to assert that dinosaurs attained intelligence just before their extinction and a nuclear war was the end game of the dinosaurs. But it can also be shown that groundwater containing uranium concentrates in bones and accounts for the radiation. Now which is more likely, a dinosaur nuclear war or ground water depositing uranium in bones?

 

BTW the reason you can't find a reference to the "glass" in india is because the site is in north Africa not India and the site is indeed covered by yellowish glass and the consensus is that a meteor exploded before impact the melted a section of the desert.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_desert_glass

 

Your discovery channel show is confusing an old Indian myth and the reality of glass caused by meteorite impacts in North Africa...

 

Glass associated with a crater...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_glass

[Ophiolite]

Buncha, T.E. et al "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago" PNAS July 10, 2012 vol. 109

 

Abstract

It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and other proxies across several continents, and triggered the Younger Dryas cooling episode 12,900 years ago. Although many independent groups have confirmed the impact evidence, the hypothesis remains controversial because some groups have failed to do so. We examined sediment sequences from 18 dated Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) sites across three continents (North America, Europe, and Asia), spanning 12,000 km around nearly one-third of the planet. All sites display abundant microspherules in the YDB with none or few above and below. In addition, three sites (Abu Hureyra, Syria; Melrose, Pennsylvania; and Blackville, South Carolina) display vesicular, high-temperature, siliceous scoria-like objects, or SLOs, that match the spherules geochemically. We compared YDB objects with melt products from a known cosmic impact (Meteor Crater, Arizona) and from the 1945 Trinity nuclear airburst in Socorro, New Mexico, and found that all of these high-energy events produced material that is geochemically and morphologically comparable, including: (i) high-temperature, rapidly quenched microspherules and SLOs; (ii) corundum, mullite, and suessite (Fe3Si), a rare meteoritic mineral that forms under high temperatures; (iii) melted SiO2 glass, or lechatelierite, with flow textures (or schlieren) that form at > 2,200 °C; and (iv) particles with features indicative of high-energy interparticle collisions. These results are inconsistent with anthropogenic, volcanic, authigenic, and cosmic materials, yet consistent with cosmic ejecta, supporting the hypothesis of extraterrestrial airbursts/impacts 12,900 years ago. The wide geographic distribution of SLOs is consistent with multiple impactors.

[EquisDeXD]

Tunguska come to mind.... The Earth has natural radioactivity, dinosaur bones, for instance, are often radioactive and this has been used to assert that dinosaurs attained intelligence just before their extinction and a nuclear war was the end game of the dinosaurs. But it can also be shown that groundwater containing uranium concentrates in bones and accounts for the radiation. Now which is more likely, a dinosaur nuclear war or ground water depositing uranium in bones?

But if this was a normal level of radiation, no one would have bothered to point it out, the concept could have easily been dismissed, but there were supposedly levels of radiation comparable to hiroshima, not just natural water deposit levels. Levels from water deposits are, well, normal, there's no point pointing them out.

 

BTW the reason you can't find a reference to the "glass" in india is because the site is in north Africa not India and the site is indeed covered by yellowish glass and the consensus is that a meteor exploded before impact the melted a section of the desert.

If you read my earlier posts you'll find I'm well aware it occurred in Libya ad Egypt as well, it occurred in multiple locations around the world, and Trinitite is I think a "western" or US term because its named after the first US bomb detonated in the US, but I can still find and did link to that there are in fact fields of green glass in the Indus valley in the Rajasthan province of India, which matches the description of Trinitite.

 

 

 

Your discovery channel show is confusing an old Indian myth and the reality of glass caused by meteorite impacts in North Africa...

 

Glass associated with a crater...

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Darwin_glass

Exactly, there's a crater when it's caused by a meteor, but there is not always a crater when a field of glass is found, which is why it's a mystery if a metoer was always involved.

 

Buncha, T.E. et al "Very high-temperature impact melt products as evidence for cosmic airbursts and impacts 12,900 years ago" PNAS July 10, 2012 vol. 109

 

Abstract

It has been proposed that fragments of an asteroid or comet impacted Earth, deposited silica-and iron-rich microspherules and other proxies across several continents, and triggered the Younger Dryas cooling episode 12,900 years ago. Although many independent groups have confirmed the impact evidence, the hypothesis remains controversial because some groups have failed to do so. We examined sediment sequences from 18 dated Younger Dryas boundary (YDB) sites across three continents (North America, Europe, and Asia), spanning 12,000 km around nearly one-third of the planet. All sites display abundant microspherules in the YDB with none or few above and below. In addition, three sites (Abu Hureyra, Syria; Melrose, Pennsylvania; and Blackville, South Carolina) display vesicular, high-temperature, siliceous scoria-like objects, or SLOs, that match the spherules geochemically. We compared YDB objects with melt products from a known cosmic impact (Meteor Crater, Arizona) and from the 1945 Trinity nuclear airburst in Socorro, New Mexico, and found that all of these high-energy events produced material that is geochemically and morphologically comparable, including: (i) high-temperature, rapidly quenched microspherules and SLOs; (ii) corundum, mullite, and suessite (Fe3Si), a rare meteoritic mineral that forms under high temperatures; (iii) melted SiO2 glass, or lechatelierite, with flow textures (or schlieren) that form at > 2,200 °C; and (iv) particles with features indicative of high-energy interparticle collisions. These results are inconsistent with anthropogenic, volcanic, authigenic, and cosmic materials, yet consistent with cosmic ejecta, supporting the hypothesis of extraterrestrial airbursts/impacts 12,900 years ago. The wide geographic distribution of SLOs is consistent with multiple impactors.

 

That just shows what I was saying already, I said I didn't rule out the possibility that it was a normal meteor and your link also shows that it is still possible for an atomic blast to be the result, I already stated MULTIPLE TIMES that I know that an atomic bomb didn't for sure happen, I ALREADY KNOW there's a chance it didn't, but given the unique circumstances I want to know what can cause nuclear explosions besides nuclear weapons. From one of my later links there seems to be geological evidence that larger than normal concentrations of Uranium 235 can naturally form, which is what refined uranium in nuclear devices has a higher concentration of. I had a hypothesis of a uranium meteor but it seems improbable that a smaller one would have a high concentration of 235, but it would seem like in ore deposits that 235 can naturally form from decay like Plutonium can in the critical density necessary for a nuclear reaction, albeit very rarely.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

I know that there are random pockets in which radiation can be higher than normal for whatever reason, but supposedly the radioactivity of the skeletons was comparable to those of Hiroshima, but I suppose without further knowledge of exactly how much of what radiation that it can't be determined.

 

 

Again, I don't care about whatever religion he has.

 

 

 

There's still the actual FILM FOOTAGE from the history channel of the trip to the Indus valley, and there's these.

 

So you know that there are places with high background radiation. that's a start.

Nobody asked about religion.

I was making the point that, based on very little evidence, you were asserting that one person whom you have never met is smarter than another person whom you have never met.

that's dumb enough to be part of a comedy sketch.

 

Please show me the film footage of the work done on the isotope ratios and the presence or absence of fission products: it sounds fascinating and it would be strong evidence.

Alternatively, accept that there isn't really any evidence that the skeletons were anything special..

[EquisDeXD]

So you know that there are places with high background radiation. that's a start.

But it wasn't the whole ground that was radioactive, it was specifically the glass or the skeletons.

 

 

 

Nobody asked about religion.

Yet someone based someone's scientific understanding on a statement of a belief in a particular phenomena.

I was making the point that, based on very little evidence, you were asserting that one person whom you have never met is smarter than another person whom you have never met.

that's dumb enough to be part of a comedy sketch.

When did I say anyone is smarter than anyone else? I specifically said that they didn't have enough scientific evidence to support either subject was smarter.

 

Please show me the film footage of the work done on the isotope ratios and the presence or absence of fission products: it sounds fascinating and it would be strong evidence.

Alternatively, accept that there isn't really any evidence that the skeletons were anything special..

I said that there wasn't confirmation of the levels radiation, otherwise go watch that history channel clip like I said, the fields of glass are caught on camera. Fields of glass can form from the heat caused by the impact from meteors, but if those shock-waves occurred, they would leave a crater behind, and if there was erosion so extreme that it eroded the crater away and leveled the landscape, it would have eroded the glass away too.

http://en.wikipedia....fission_reactor

The speculation of tectonic compression is highly improbable, but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally.

Edited October 14, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[John Cuthber]

But it wasn't the whole ground that was radioactive, it was specifically the glass or the skeletons.

 

which I explained earlier in post 38.

Did you not read it or not understand it?

 

Re. "When did I say anyone is smarter than anyone else? I specifically said that they didn't have enough scientific evidence to support either subject was smarter."

Sorry, I'm getting muddled. That referred to Ophiolite's comment reminding me of a comedy sketch.

 

How clear can I make this

I don't care if the skeletons are so radioactive that they glow in the dark.

For a start it's easy enough to explain.

For an finish, it's not evidence of a nuclear reaction of any sort.

That's why I asked about fission products; they would really be the "smoking gun".

So far the best you have is nothing.

 

 

"but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally. "

Exactly: we have evidence.

Specifically we have distorted isotope ratios in the uranium and we have fission products at Oklo.

But, I'm willing to bet we don't have them in your glassy field.

Not just because we have not looked.

I guess someone will have looked- it's not a very difficult assay.

Someone may well have done the test found that there wasn't anything interesting and not bothered to report it (or reported it somewhere obscure).

It's difficult to check when the location flips between Africa and India.

 

If I was making a video and I wanted to make people think the skeletons were strangely radioactive I'd compare them to something that isn't nearly as radioactive as you would expect.

I might well choose the skeletons of the poor souls who died at Hiroshima.

 

Everybody knows they died as the result of an atom bomb so everyone will "know" that the bodies are very radioactive.

Everybody would be wrong.

Those people mainly died from fires and blast damage. Those don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

A few of them were killed by radiation sickness.

But uranium doesn't do that- sure it's toxic like mercury or lead, but it's not actually very radioactive.

Most of the radiation is in the form of beta and gamma rays. But, since the beta particles have a range of a metre at most in air, they don't kill many people.

The gammas don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

There are a few of the fission products that do, but those are not actually produced in very large quantities. Also they are slowly flushed from the body. So, after a while, your skeleton isn't much more radioactive than anyone else's.

 

Of course, the bomb will have spread a fair bit of uranium across the city.

It held about 64 kilos of uranium and it's fair to assume that most of it was spread across the city.

But 64 kilos isn't as much as you might think.

Uranium isn't that rare.

The average concentration in the earth's crust is about 2.7 ppm m/m so a tonne of soil contains about 2.7 grams of uranium

64Kg corresponds to about 24000 tons of dirt.

Hiroshima is about 800 square kilometres.

A ton of dirt is about a cubic metre.

the top metre of dirt would weigh about 800,000,000 tons

 

So the uranium dropped by the bomb is roughly that present in the top 0.000003 of a metre of dirt.

 

How radioactive do you now think the skeletons were?

You seem to have fallen for a screenwriter's trick.

Edited October 14, 2012 by John Cuthber

[EquisDeXD]

which I explained earlier in post 38.

Did you not read it or not understand it?

I guess I 'm confused by your seeming disagreement with it.

 

 

How clear can I make this

I don't care if the skeletons are so radioactive that they glow in the dark.

Show me any other excavation on the planet where skeletons are naturally highly radioactive.

 

 

 

 

For an finish, it's not evidence of a nuclear reaction of any sort.

That's why I asked about fission products; they would really be the "smoking gun".

It said even in Ophilite's quaotation that trinitite can be and often is the result of nuclear blasts. There's no impact crater, which makes a normal meteor improbable, so I'd like to see you offer a better explanation.

 

 

 

"but at least we have evidence that states nuclear reactions can occur naturally. "

Exactly: we have evidence.

Specifically we have distorted isotope ratios in the uranium and we have fission products at Oklo.

But, I'm willing to bet we don't have them in your glassy field.

A hypothesis was that tectonic activity caused compression of a pocket of a higher concentration of uranium 235 which set of the reaction, under those circumstances the uranium ore deposit would have been shifted away from the glassy field over time and in the event, most likely northward.

 

 

 

If I was making a video and I wanted to make people think the skeletons were strangely radioactive I'd compare them to something that isn't nearly as radioactive as you would expect.

I might well choose the skeletons of the poor souls who died at Hiroshima.

 

Everybody knows they died as the result of an atom bomb so everyone will "know" that the bodies are very radioactive.

Everybody would be wrong.

Those people mainly died from fires and blast damage. Those don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

I agree with what you were trying to get at, which is that a lot of damage is caused by either the shockwave or left over debris, but the shockwave of an atomic bomb actually carries with it radioactive material, it's a hydrogen bomb that has a higher yield of thermal energy and therefore causes more damage from heat and fire.

 

But uranium doesn't do that- sure it's toxic like mercury or lead, but it's not actually very radioactive.

Most of the radiation is in the form of beta and gamma rays. But, since the beta particles have a range of a metre at most in air, they don't kill many people.

I completely agree that most naturally occurring uranium isn't very radioactive, which should indicate that it's strange for specific skeletons to have a higher amount of radiation. Also, a lot of natural uranium radiation is alpha decay, which is why its not damaging. Gamma rays are definitely damaging, if you replaced all the alpha decay with gamma decay you could easily get cancer from handling uranium.

The gammas don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

But neutron bombardment from an atomic reaction can.

 

 

Of course, the bomb will have spread a fair bit of uranium across the city.

What? Did you seriously use the word "bomb"? I said in the first post that I don't believe the alien conspiracy, the whole point of this is that there was no bomb or any device at all and that it was a naturally occurring event. Edited October 15, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[Ophiolite]

What? Did you seriously use the word "bomb"? I said in the first post that I don't believe the alien conspiracy, the whole point of this is that there was no bomb or any device at all and that it was a naturally occurring event.

What? Can you seriously not read? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. You demonstrate in post after post that your reading comprehension is flawed.)

 

Here is what John said:

 

If I was making a video and I wanted to make people think the skeletons were strangely radioactive I'd compare them to something that isn't nearly as radioactive as you would expect.

I might well choose the skeletons of the poor souls who died at Hiroshima.

 

Everybody knows they died as the result of an atom bomb so everyone will "know" that the bodies are very radioactive.

Everybody would be wrong.

Those people mainly died from fires and blast damage. Those don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

A few of them were killed by radiation sickness.

But uranium doesn't do that- sure it's toxic like mercury or lead, but it's not actually very radioactive.

Most of the radiation is in the form of beta and gamma rays. But, since the beta particles have a range of a metre at most in air, they don't kill many people.

The gammas don't give you a radioactive skeleton.

There are a few of the fission products that do, but those are not actually produced in very large quantities. Also they are slowly flushed from the body. So, after a while, your skeleton isn't much more radioactive than anyone else's.

 

Of course, the bomb will have spread a fair bit of uranium across the city.It held about 64 kilos of uranium and it's fair to assume that most of it was spread across the city.

But 64 kilos isn't as much as you might think.Uranium isn't that rare.

 

John is very clear that he is discussing the Hiroshima bombing, not the alleged event you have started the thread about. Even if you had failed to make the connection between "the poor souls who died at Hiroshima, the mention of "an atom bomb" and the phrase "of course the bomb.....", in his next clause he details how much uranium it contained, so that it is totally obvious he is not talking about your event.

 

This typifies your repeated inability to understand anything you have been told in multiple posts. John explicitly told you that

a) skeletons tend to preferentially absorb uranium from the environment

b) most victims of a nuclear attack do not die of radiation, nor do their bodies display signs of elevated radiation levels

c) therefore if the skeletons found at the site of the event you are interested in do show elevated radiation levels that's almost certainly not due to a nuclear explosion.

 

The bulk of this thread is a string of posts in which we have attempted to help you understand what has been written. When are you going to start making an effort in this direction?

Edited October 15, 2012 by Ophiolite

[swansont]

But if this was a normal level of radiation, no one would have bothered to point it out, the concept could have easily been dismissed, but there were supposedly levels of radiation comparable to hiroshima, not just natural water deposit levels. Levels from water deposits are, well, normal, there's no point pointing them out.

Never bother to point it out? And that would be because an entertainment program never sensationalizes its findings?