Tuesday, March 19, 2024
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
Unexplained Mysteries
You are viewing: Home > News > Extraterrestrial > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
All ▾
Search Submit

Extraterrestrial

Physicist claims Mars was attacked by nukes

By T.K. Randall
November 26, 2014 · Comment icon 195 comments

Brandenburg believes Mars was attacked by nukes. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
A controversial paper by Dr John Brandenburg claims that life on Mars was wiped out by a nuclear attack.
The idea that a civilization on the planet Mars was once decimated by a nuclear strike orchestrated by an advanced extraterrestrial race sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie, yet in a bizarre new paper plasma physicist Dr John Brandenburg has proposed that this scenario may have actually taken place.

The propulsion technologies expert maintains that entities hostile to "young, noisy civilizations" may have taken exception to the planet's inhabitants and could do the same to us here on Earth.

His research, which is entitled "Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past, The Cydonian Hypothesis and Fermi's Paradox," bases the claim on a combination of factors including the composition of the planet's soil and the discovery of large concentrations of Xenon-129 in its atmosphere, something typically seen following a nuclear incident.
"Given the large amount of nuclear isotopes in Mars atmosphere resembling those from hydrogen bomb tests on Earth, Mars may present an example of civilization wiped out by a nuclear attack from space," Brandenburg wrote.

"The author therefore advocates that a human mission to Mars is mounted immediately to maximize knowledge of what occurred."

His claims have been met with an understandably high degree of skepticism.

Source: IB Times | Comments (195)




Other news and articles
Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #186 Posted by DONTEATUS 9 years ago
Auh ! you Flat Earther`s take all the Fun outta Life !
Comment icon #187 Posted by S2F 9 years ago
So how exactly gravity creates spherical shapes? and really is there enough gravity in space to determinate the shape of a planet? It's the mass of the planet that determines it's gravity. Objects with enough mass will form a spherical shape under their own gravity. Here is an interesting video I just watched yesterday that covers the principal a little.
Comment icon #188 Posted by DONTEATUS 9 years ago
Right ,And I-Hop has this Earthcake on there menu for the Holidays ! Eat up Y`all !
Comment icon #189 Posted by Sir Wearer of Hats 9 years ago
Things wouldnt work very well if planets were cubed shaped, would they? The warmest places on Earth would be the corners, they'd be 90 degrees all day long....
Comment icon #190 Posted by Noteverythingisaconspiracy 9 years ago
Things wouldnt work very well if planets were cubed shaped, would they? This gives a whole new meaning to the phrases such as: "Its just around the corner" and "living on the edge"
Comment icon #191 Posted by DONTEATUS 9 years ago
The Borg would feel right at Home !
Comment icon #192 Posted by Sir Wearer of Hats 9 years ago
The Borg would feel right at Home ! And Bizzaro.
Comment icon #193 Posted by Thorvir Hrothgaard 9 years ago
And yet we still don 't understand in our known universe why the most occurent natural geometrical shape is a circle. We? Speak for yourself and not the rest of us, please.
Comment icon #194 Posted by Noteverythingisaconspiracy 9 years ago
And yet we still don 't understand in our known universe why the most occurent natural geometrical shape is a circle. If I really wanted to nitpick (and I do ), then I would have to correct you there. The most common shape for planets and stars are not in fact a circle (Did you mean sphere ?). It is an oblate spheroid.
Comment icon #195 Posted by stereologist 9 years ago
If I really wanted to nitpick (and I do ), then I would have to correct you there. The most common shape for planets and stars are not in fact a circle (Did you mean sphere ?). It is an oblate spheroid. If we really wanted to nitpick we'd point out that a sphere is a 2-d surface and does not include the interior just as a circle does not include its interior. A disk is a circle including its interior and a ball is a sphere and its interior. We understand that when we define the shapes of objects we are discussing the surface and not the interior. That is why it is acceptable to describe an obj... [More]


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!
Book cover

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!
Patreon logo

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

Recent news and articles