User Controls
Weeeeel gonts, looks I'm back again.
-
2017-08-09 at 4:53 AM UTCImagination and confirmation bias don't explain such high radiation levels, or a crater with no meteoric material containing glass spherules.
-
2017-08-09 at 4:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Yeah, but what about the physical evidence..? Stuff like:
"When excavations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro reached the street level, they discovered skeletons scattered about the cities, many holding hands and sprawling in the streets as if some instant, horrible doom had taken place. People were just lying, unburied, in the streets of the city. And these skeletons are thousands of years old, even by traditional archaeological standards. What could cause such a thing? Why did the bodies not decay or get eaten by wild animals? Furthermore, there is no apparent cause of a physically violent death.
These skeletons are among the most radioactive ever found, on par with those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. At one site, Soviet scholars found a skeleton which had a radioactive level 50 times greater than normal. Other cities have been found in northern India that show indications of explosions of great magnitude. One such city, found between the Ganges and the mountains of Rajmahal, seems to have been subjected to intense heat. Huge masses of walls and foundations of the ancient city are fused together, literally vitrified! And since there is no indication of a volcanic eruption at Mohenjo-Daro or at the other cities, the intense heat to melt clay vessels can only be explained by an atomic blast or some other unknown weapon. The cities were wiped out entirely.
While the skeletons have been carbon-dated to 2500 BC, we must keep in mind that carbon-dating involves measuring the amount of radiation left. When atomic explosions are involved, that makes then seem much younger."
and:
"Another curious sign of an ancient nuclear war in India is a giant crater near Bombay. The nearly circular 2,154-metre-diameter Lonar crater, located 400 kilometres northeast of Bombay and aged at less than 50,000 years old, could be related to nuclear warfare of antiquity.
No trace of any meteoric material, etc., has been found at the site or in the vicinity, and this is the world's only known "impact" crater in basalt. Indications of great shock (from a pressure exceeding 600,000 atmospheres) and intense, abrupt heat (indicated by basalt glass spherules) can be ascertained from the site."
lack of evidence to prove a natural occurrence does not equal proof of a super-natural occurrence.
. -
2017-08-09 at 4:55 AM UTCNo, but the evidence suggests we currently don't have a valid natural explanation.
-
2017-08-09 at 4:59 AM UTC
-
2017-08-09 at 4:59 AM UTCBefore the Great Flood, the people who existed at that time had achieved flight, other modern advancements, and even space travel. There is plenty of proof they even made it to the Moon.
-
2017-08-09 at 5:06 AM UTC
-
2017-08-09 at 5:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Before the Great Flood, the people who existed at that time had achieved flight, other modern advancements, and even space travel. There is plenty of proof they even made it to the Moon.
why would an advanced race bother with cave paintings?
further, if we nuclear-holocausted ourselves, the majority of the planet would die from secondary radiation exposure and extreme temperatures, not primary explosions - there would still be buildings left standing all over the world -
2017-08-09 at 5:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by -SpectraL Before the Great Flood, the people who existed at that time had achieved flight, other modern advancements, and even space travel. There is plenty of proof they even made it to the Moon.
i guess it was too bad that houseboat, fishing, underwater exploration and water purification technologies were just so far lacking behind jet propulsion and space technology at that time huh?
.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-08-09 at 5:14 AM UTCI honestly don't know what spectral believes and what he says just to wind people up anymoreThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-08-09 at 5:17 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra why would an advanced race bother with cave paintings?
further, if we nuclear-holocausted ourselves, the majority of the planet would die from secondary radiation exposure and extreme temperatures, not primary explosions - there would still be buildings left standing all over the world
the threat of nuclear holocaust is greatly exaggerated in most peoples minds. there certainly would be many survivors that would live on and eventually re-populate. the powers that be want us living in fear, so they make the scenario sound a lot worse than it actually would be. both hiroshima and nagasaki are currently modern vibrant cities with large populations living in them. they have been for many years, even a relatively short time after the war they were already beginning to rebuild the cities.
. -
2017-08-09 at 5:23 AM UTCtwo cities leveled with early, low-yield nuclear weapons is not a good indicator for how much damage a full-scale nuclear exchange (largely between three countries in different parts of the world) with weapons that can be several-thousand times more powerful would cause.
https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ - have a play with this for some perspective -
2017-08-09 at 5:29 AM UTCalso, in terms of radiation being carried by wind and water currents, consider the material Chernobyl spit out:
multiply that by a few thousand (at least) , spread over every continent -
2017-08-09 at 5:32 AM UTCnot saying it wouldn't be devastating. but the bombs would be targeted at the most concentrated areas of inhabitation. the earth is fucking huge and the surviving populations would manage mostly by relocating to the more rural areas of the globe where they would manage pretty fine. to give a perspective on this, the entire human population of the world could all easily stand in wales and still have plenty of room to swing their arms. we really only inhabit a tiny fraction of the world but we do get the illusion that we are more significant compared to it. especially those of us that live in the more populated areas of towns and cities.
. -
2017-08-09 at 5:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra also, in terms of radiation being carried by wind and water currents, consider the material Chernobyl spit out:
multiply that by a few thousand (at least) , spread over every continent
and yet europe is managing perfectly fine and barely anybody has noticed any effects from the radiation. there are people to this day that refused to move away from the disaster area and are perfectly fine. i can remember chernobyl happening and for months the news was banging on about how winds will carry fallout across europe, including the UK, and radiate sheep and cattle and crops and we would all be getting cancer from our food etc. totally fucking exaggerated.
. -
2017-08-09 at 5:45 AM UTCalso comparing the fallout from a nuclear blast to the fallout from a leaking nuclear reactor isn't such a great comparison. the blast from a nuclear explosion will last maybe up to a minute max. all the nuclear energy that would get released will have been released in that minute. and of course that energy will effect the surrounding environment. a leaking nuclear reactor however works differently, it continuously releases nuclear energy for a very long time. it doesn't stop releasing more after a short burst like an explosion. radioactive fuel will dispense radiation for thousands of years continuously. its not a great comparison at all.
. -
2017-08-09 at 5:46 AM UTCBut depending where it hits, a nuclear explosion could fuck up a nuclear reactor or three.
-
2017-08-09 at 5:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery But depending where it hits, a nuclear explosion could fuck up a nuclear reactor or three.
a bit maybe, but modern reactors are built to withstand explosions and to contain leaks very well. earthquakes are probably more of a threat, i.e fukashima, but lessons will no doubt have been learnt from that by now too.
. -
2017-08-09 at 5:54 AM UTC
Originally posted by NARCassist the blast from a nuclear explosion will last maybe up to a minute max.
lol, that's absolutely not true.
light radioactive particles carried by wind currents, ie. Iodide and Strontium isotopes have half-lives measured in weeks.
heavy particles (Cesium, Plutonium etc) carried by water, animals, storms etc. deposit into the topsoil (and your bones for some isotopes) and have half-lives measured in decades to centuries.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml -
2017-08-09 at 6:05 AM UTCHe said the blast. Think you're talking about the fallout, while he was talking about the actual explosion.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-08-09 at 6:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by aldra lol, that's absolutely not true.
light radioactive particles carried by wind currents, ie. Iodide and Strontium isotopes have half-lives measured in weeks.
heavy particles (Cesium, Plutonium etc) carried by water, animals, storms etc. deposit into the topsoil (and your bones for some isotopes) and have half-lives measured in decades to centuries.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml
which is the fallout produced by the explosion. nuclear reactors produce all that too, but they keep producing it continuously for thousands of years.
.
