Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Nuclear explosions on Mars


Not Invented Here

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

 I actually liked Ziggies Music and still do.

For me, the Ziggy songs are some of the most fascinating and brilliant pieces of music in human history. :yes:

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Soon We can Really Go and See it all For Our self`s ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
8 minutes ago, M-Albion said:

IMO, Mars is currently or "recently" inhabited. I've spent the past 7 years studying the surface in very close magnification of thousands of super hi definition images available from both NASA and ESA, If anyone is interested in seeing some hi def images, in 3D red/cyan of activities of life, (which I forged myself), let me know and I'll start a new thread.

  hBcY4u2.jpg?2

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, M-Albion said:

Hi everyone, this is a first post for me and a subject close to my heart.

IMO, Mars is currently or "recently" inhabited. I've spent the past 7 years studying the surface in very close magnification of thousands of super hi definition images available from both NASA and ESA,

If anyone is interested in seeing some hi def images, in 3D red/cyan of activities of life, (which I forged myself), let me know and I'll start a new thread.

Since the images aren't in 3D all you're doing is distorting the original.  If you haven't figured that out after 7 years then you probably never will.

More than likely you're plugging your own product.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2020 at 5:02 PM, Not Invented Here said:

Evidence of largescale nuclear activity on Mars comes from a variety of sources. It has been a long standing paradox that uranium, thorium and potassium, appear hyper-abundant on Mars surface when compared to Mars meteorites, which are believed to sample subsurface rocks.[4]

There is something wrong with this sentence.  What does it mean  "meteorites, which are believed to sample subsurface rocks"?  How do meteorites sample anything?  There seems to be a phrase missing in that run on sentence.

As for the OP, I have read several "new Age" theories that there was nuclear war or blasts on Mars and the martians escaped to earth.  Some even claim they terraformed earth to suit them.  Some kind of inter planetary war and that is how the planet Marduk was destroyed and became the asteroid belt.

I do find this intersting.  Thanks for posting and welcome to the forum.

"Alternative Hypotheses to a Natural Nuclear Reactor in Mars Past : The Natural Nuclear Reactor Hypothesis had the merit that it provided a known source for a large nuclear explosion that , in turn, explained the salient features of Mars isotopic anomalies with one or two events. However, deeper analysis-the xenon spectrum and absence of large craters-has shown this hypothesis is inadequate. Therefore, we must consider other hypotheses that are more complex. The first hypothesis that will be considered, is that nuclear explosions occurred in mid-air above both Mare Acidalium and Utopia Planum but that their cause is anomalous , this be called the Anomalous Explosion Hypothesis[ 13] We will also consider the hypothesis of explosions in mid-air of two large asteroidal bodies enriched in Iodine 129 and other fission products and fissional materials.We will call this the TIFRA (Tunguskoid Intrinsically -Fission Rich Asteroid) hypothesis. Finally the Null Hypothesis, will also be considered, which says that the isotopic anomalies-particular lythe xenon 129 hyper-abundance, the K-Th U enriched surface layer, the neutron irradiation in the Sherggotites and finally the acid-etched glass at both the radioactive hot spots, is simply due to variety of independent causes unique to the large and geologically active environment of Mars and its proximity to the asteroid belt."

 

Edited by Desertrat56
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, M-Albion said:

IMO, Mars is currently or "recently" inhabited.

After the argent tower was destroyed in 2016 only a few demons remained. The lost city of Hebeth has been abandoned for aeons buried deep within Mars.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, M-Albion said:

Hi everyone, this is a first post for me and a subject close to my heart.

IMO, Mars is currently or "recently" inhabited. I've spent the past 7 years studying the surface in very close magnification of thousands of super hi definition images available from both NASA and ESA,

If anyone is interested in seeing some hi def images, in 3D red/cyan of activities of life, (which I forged myself), let me know and I'll start a new thread.

Red/Cyan 3D glasses are a must though.

"The more you look, the more you see,  the more you see....the more you'll know".

https://www.amazon.com/BIAL-Red-Blue-Glasses-Anaglyph-Game-Extra/dp/B01ANJXCU2/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=3d+glasses+red+blue&qid=1597730907&refinements=p_85%3A2470955011&rnid=2470954011&rps=1&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExNzlSVDQxMTk2NVpBJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwNTU1ODczMUU4NzdRS0dDVTUyMCZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMjUzMzQyMVEyU1dCUjZFWUswWSZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2F0ZiZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=

Cheers,

Mal

 

Aaaaaaaaaaand the world's top scientific bodies, including those that spent billions actually going there... missed it all? 

Hard pass.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, M-Albion said:

IMO, Mars is currently or "recently" inhabited. I've spent the past 7 years studying the surface in very close magnification of thousands of super hi definition images available from both NASA and ESA,

:yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

There is something wrong with this sentence.  What does it mean  "meteorites, which are believed to sample subsurface rocks"?  How do meteorites sample anything?  There seems to be a phrase missing in that run on sentence.

As for the OP, I have read several "new Age" theories that there was nuclear war or blasts on Mars and the martians escaped to earth.  Some even claim they terraformed earth to suit them.  Some kind of inter planetary war and that is how the planet Marduk was destroyed and became the asteroid belt.

I do find this intersting.  Thanks for posting and welcome to the forum.

"Alternative Hypotheses to a Natural Nuclear Reactor in Mars Past : The Natural Nuclear Reactor Hypothesis had the merit that it provided a known source for a large nuclear explosion that , in turn, explained the salient features of Mars isotopic anomalies with one or two events. However, deeper analysis-the xenon spectrum and absence of large craters-has shown this hypothesis is inadequate. Therefore, we must consider other hypotheses that are more complex. The first hypothesis that will be considered, is that nuclear explosions occurred in mid-air above both Mare Acidalium and Utopia Planum but that their cause is anomalous , this be called the Anomalous Explosion Hypothesis[ 13] We will also consider the hypothesis of explosions in mid-air of two large asteroidal bodies enriched in Iodine 129 and other fission products and fissional materials.We will call this the TIFRA (Tunguskoid Intrinsically -Fission Rich Asteroid) hypothesis. Finally the Null Hypothesis, will also be considered, which says that the isotopic anomalies-particular lythe xenon 129 hyper-abundance, the K-Th U enriched surface layer, the neutron irradiation in the Sherggotites and finally the acid-etched glass at both the radioactive hot spots, is simply due to variety of independent causes unique to the large and geologically active environment of Mars and its proximity to the asteroid belt."

 

"Natural nuclear reactor provided a known source for a large nuclear explosion"....?  Someone hasn't done much homework on nuclear explosions .

In order for it to explode, you have to have a lot of extremely pure Uranium in one place at one time.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor  The only conceivable way that this could happen (and it's so remote as to be implausible) would be that it came together as the planet was formed, 5 billion years ago.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a silly, notion, Why, everyone knows an extinct Martian civilization was slagged from orbit by the directed energy weapons of a Forerunner armada.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kenemet said:

"Natural nuclear reactor provided a known source for a large nuclear explosion"....?  Someone hasn't done much homework on nuclear explosions .

In order for it to explode, you have to have a lot of extremely pure Uranium in one place at one time.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor  The only conceivable way that this could happen (and it's so remote as to be implausible) would be that it came together as the planet was formed, 5 billion years ago.

I think that is the whole point of the article, that the amount and type of radiation does not fit with what is known (understood) about natural nuclear reactions.  So some are speculating on how to reconcile the facts that are currently know about the phenomena and the data that has been sent back from Mars.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think that is the whole point of the article, that the amount and type of radiation does not fit with what is known (understood) about natural nuclear reactions.  So some are speculating on how to reconcile the facts that are currently know about the phenomena and the data that has been sent back from Mars.   

Mars doesn't have a magnetic field so it's bombarded with everything.  

We can detect plutonium in stars, and we're wondering about that but there isn't any on Mars.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, M-Albion...

1. So it's only since you used the anaglyph's that you saw something weird?

2. Given the topic of pareidolia, can you explain how many weird rock shapes there should be, just by random weathering and other geological issues?

BTW, Q.2 is an example of a question I don't know the answer to.  Normally I don't ask such questions... :D 

But I am well aware of what pareidolia is...  AND that a primary rule of analysis is that you must apply a methodology ONLY after knowing what it does, and showing how you have used it successfully and in a proven way in other scenarios.  You must NEVER just try things out (like applying effects and adjusting the proverbial Photoshop sliders...) and just play until you get what you like, and cherry pick the results...  Of COURSE you'll see some weird or 'recognisable' shapes - that's what our brains are designed to do..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

I think that is the whole point of the article, that the amount and type of radiation does not fit with what is known (understood) about natural nuclear reactions.  So some are speculating on how to reconcile the facts that are currently know about the phenomena and the data that has been sent back from Mars.   

There's a lot of things that don't fit with known things about Mars... including the announcement that there's "acid-etched glass" on the surface of Mars.  However, the surface has not been completely explored... AND... there is (as far as I can tell by googling) absolutely no evidence of "acid etched glass" on Mars.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, drifting offtopic... I prefer 'cross-eye' anaglyphs, where you need nothing other than the desire to look a bit funny as you practise how to do it.

Here's one I prepared earlier...
gallery_95887_13_33049.jpg
To get the 3D effect, I'd suggest you use a 'normal' (eg laptop/desktop/tablet) screen, but it should also work on a phone if you can resize it so it just fits.  Simply position yourself square onto the screen, then relax your eyes, and cross them slightly and slowly.  Practise doing a small 'crossing' first, then work up to the point where you can bring the images together so they overlap perfectly - at that point your eyes will sorta lock on and you should be able to look around and enjoy the effect.  Again, practise it...

That particular image has a couple of minor defects, where the clouds moved a little and a palm tree moved in the wind between the times I took each image.  Those areas look a bit strange...

No, it's not my car, btw..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just two things I'll reply to, before putting you on Ignore..

1 hour ago, M-Albion said:

During the time there, we discussed the subject of pareidolia, in its many forms, from simple clouds to more complex versions. Gradually after long debates with some very intelligent scholars, we debated and we debated, on the subject, arriving at one undeniable conclusion being; There were many, in the positions (manly the CIA) of social filtration, who were pressing the subject down the throats, "that it was not there...noooo, it's all in YOUR mind and NOT on the surface.

....  I stopped right there.  That is a lovely example of completely ignoring what science and proper analysis is.  Seriously, you made up words and put them in other's mouths .. and that is your 'argument?  No examples, no logic, no justification, and a completely false generalisation.  What a joke.

Let me put the problem to you, PRECISELY.  During those long debates (the pretend ones that you made up) if they or you had a clue, then the topic of using an approach of OBJECTIVE versus SUBJECTIVE analysis would/should have been the key discussion point.  It's really quite simple - pareidolia in itself is simply a small side issue.  UNLESS you can PRECISELY define in OBJECTIVE terms what you are claiming, then your approach is 100% worthless.  It's really that simple, AS IT DAM WELL SHOULD BE.

Secondly, my image was NOT offered to you to mangle for a colour anaglyph.  Did you not read what I said?  As you (again) should know, introducing overlaid color artefacts like you have reduces quality and resolution and adds false detail - there is significant loss of detail in your combined image.  I would have thought that the analyst in you would have known that lossy methods are BAD.

Anyway, that's plenty enough to know I'm wasting my time here.  Interested readers, by all means compare my method with the version that M-A did.  Which is clearer?  And ask yourself why would it be an advantage to have a worse quality image?  Hint - it's the same reason why ufo=alienz true believers just love fuzzy, overenlarged blobs - that means we can't see that it is in fact just a heavily fuzzed picture of an aircraft, seagull, thrown hubcap... or just a weathered rock.  BTW, if I scan around those images I can see much better faces and other stuff.  Your imagination sucks.

Anyway, that's all from me, I'm off to other threads  - ones with value...

 

And yeah, ask me what I really think.... :D 

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One quick addition.

M-A says his hero was Tom Van Flanden.  Actually spelt Van Flandern, but what would I know.

Tom, amongst other things, was a promoter of the 'face on Mars'.  Wow, talk about pareidolia......  From the Wiki on Tom:

Quote

Van Flandern supported .. Le Sage's theory of gravitation, according to which gravity is the result of a flux of invisible "ultra-mundane corpuscles" impinging on all objects from all directions at superluminal speeds. He gave public lectures in which he claimed that these particles could be used as a limitless source of free energy, and to provide superluminal propulsion for spacecraft.

In 1998 Van Flandern wrote a paper asserting that astronomical observations imply that gravity propagates at least twenty billion times faster than light, or even infinitely fast. Gerald E. Marsh, Charles Nissim-Sabat and Steve Carlip demonstrated that Van Flandern's argument was fallacious.

Face on Mars
Van Flandern was a prominent advocate of the belief that certain geological features seen on Mars, especially the "face at Cydonia", are not of natural origin, but were produced by intelligent extra-terrestrial life, probably the inhabitants of a major planet once located where the asteroid belt presently exists, and which Van Flandern believed had exploded 3.2 million years ago. The claimed artificiality of the "face" was also the topic of a chapter of his 1993 book.

The "Face" is an optical illusion, an example of pareidolia, and theories that it was an artificial artifact were derided by skeptics and science educators as pseudoscience.  After analysis of the higher resolution Mars Global Surveyor data NASA stated that "a detailed analysis of multiple images of this feature reveals a natural looking Martian hill whose illusory face-like appearance depends on the viewing angle and angle of illumination

Any questions?  This stuff really is absolute junk.

Bye.

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, M-Albion said:

As I mention in my post above, I've studied the surface,lose up now for over 7 years, that's not a brag, in saying because I too went about this whole topic of life on Mars with a selective dose of skepticism, in fact, more than most. I only turned to the images from legitimate sources in the precept that they were not tampered with from these Agency's. I was and still remain using the standards of the scientific method.

How have you "studied the surface"? have you gotten a degree in Martian geology? because it doesn't matter how long you stare at an image with 3D glasses on if you don't really know what you're looking at.

Quote

Back when I started, I was a member of the now defunct research site "Meta Research" hosted by the late Dr. Tom Van Flanden. I man I miss!  A true champion in open research on the subject, who passed away far too soon.

To say Dr Van Flandern held unsupported, fringe views is being diplomatic.

Quote

During the time there, we discussed the subject of pareidolia, in its many forms, from simple clouds to more complex versions. Gradually after long debates with some very intelligent scholars, we debated and we debated, on the subject, arriving at one undeniable conclusion being; There were many, in the positions (manly the CIA) of social filtration, who were pressing the subject down the throats, "that it was not there...noooo, it's all in YOUR mind and NOT on the surface.

What is your evidence that anyone who disagreed with you was "from the CIA"?

And secondly, why would they release images that had such earth-shattering revelations? Why not just keep them hidden? This argument never holds water.

Quote

But let me tell you my friend, it's ALL a pack of hogwash. In my opinion - of course.

Well it either is or isn't.

Quote

 

Let me give you a reverse scenario. Imagine for a moment, that you gazed into the clouded sky and made out the shape and form a steam train, could happen right.

Now the next day you look up and saw not one but five separate cloud formations...separate and distinct shapes and forms of more steam train clouds, then the next day, both yourself and four of your friends look ups also, and saw the shape in the clouds of five distinct forms which clearly in their cute puffy forms - steam engines.

 

That would be extraordinary, but that isn't what's happening is it? You can't make up a totally bizarre and frankly impossible scenario and then say "see? it's the same as my scenario" when it's nothing of the sort.

Quote

The scientific method must then be put to test and to ask the question, what could be causing the clouds in the sky to consecutively repeat the similar shape and form of a stem engine? The SM (as I call it) checks all the weather conditions and low and behold find absolutely no man made or natural conditions that would account for the phenomenon.

A bit crude, but sure.

Quote

 

So the question then became; "would this truly happen in reality"? The answer is of course would be no, it would not. For the chances of seeing consecutive shapes in the clouds, perfectly reasonably formed, in gassiest designs of steam engines?

This is what we found over and over again on Martian surface, constant designs of similarity with each other. Not one or two or three, but many many "congruent" designs in the surface which had properties connected by congruent form. 

 

So you're seeing objects that are as illogical as steam trains in the clouds, on the Martian surface? Wow this is going to be good.

Quote

I soon learnt, in my observations, that the mathematical occurrence was entirely inconsistent with even the fallacy refereed to as "pareidolia"!

Pareidolia is a well recognised and accept phenomena. You can't just wave it away because it messes with your conclusions.

Quote

Pareidolia would simply not allow for the concept of "consistent design" or congruent patterns which show the principle of design or better put - STYLE!

Can't wait to see these Martian designs.

Quote

 

Lets say, in the close up image, a pile of three rocks on top of each other which looked somewhat contrived sitting there in front of the rover, yes they looked odd but the rover passes by.

Then, meters away, another seemingly contrived pile of small rocks but this time there are five. Further on, yet another pile of small rocks, this time, there are seven, and yet again meters away another pile, this time, there are eleven.

What was being observe here? Further again, another pile of small rocks, but this time, 13 rocks could be discerned, piled on top of each other?

We found out that the fallacy, pareidolia, could be tested on the Martian surface! And the results completely and utterly dismantled ALL of the points in the so named phenomenon known at PAREIDOLIAAAHHH.  In fact, if you type the word on this forum, right here, the spell checker does not even recognize the word!

 

That isn't what pareidolia is. A pile of rocks doesn't look like a pile of rocks because of pareidolia. It looks like a pile of rocks because that is what it is.

Quote

So this was what was found, instance after instance of shape and forms in the surface of Mars which had congruent shape of "Style" in shapes which had another undeniable data set...STYLE and were absolutely recognizable to the human mind and human HISTORY...YIKES!

So... the piles of rocks aren't piles of rocks?!  Or am I completely misunderstanding what you're saying.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Kenemet said:

There's a lot of things that don't fit with known things about Mars... including the announcement that there's "acid-etched glass" on the surface of Mars.  However, the surface has not been completely explored... AND... there is (as far as I can tell by googling) absolutely no evidence of "acid etched glass" on Mars.  

Well, since we haven't actuallly set foot on mars yet (or have we?  :lol:)  How do we know, scientists are only basing assumptions on what they get back with images and atmospheric data compiled by computers programmed by humans with only earth experience.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2020 at 12:02 AM, Not Invented Here said:

"Evidence of largescale nuclear activity on Mars comes from a variety of sources. It has been a long standing paradox that uranium, thorium and potassium, appear hyper-abundant on Mars surface when compared to Mars meteorites, which are believed to sample subsurface rocks.[4] This suggested a thin debris layer on the surface of Mars, enriched in Th, K and U , and dispersed by some impact or explosion"

"This pattern suggested a massive explosion, such as the explosive disassembly of a large natural nuclear reactor, producing a global debris pattern , with a shock wave wrapping around the planet and colliding with itself at the approximate antipode"

"However, the xenon 129 hyper-abundance in the Mars atmosphere is not consistent with the operation of a natural nuclear reactor, which requires moderation and slow neutrons to favor creation of fission on U235 nuclei rather than competing neutron capture processes[6](Fig. 3) . The xenon 129 hyper-abundance is also not consistent with spontaneous fission of U238.(Fig. 3)"

"Other than the decay of large amounts of isolated Iodine 129,-half-life 15.7 million years. Xenon 129 hyper-abundance is caused by fast neutron fission and this is the source of its hyper abundance in the radiogenic component of xenon the Earth’s atmosphere that has appeared since"

Basically this 2015 paper is saying that the amomolies are not caused by reactions found in natural nuclear reactors.

The paper goes on to speculate, but I beleive this is an unexplained mystery?

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2015/pdf/2660.pdf

This has been known about for a couple of years.

We dont know of a natural process that would create the isotopes in question, or why they are only in the surface layer of soil on Mars. If nuclear weapons have been used then the most obvious source would be human made nuclear weapons. Lets suppose a nuclear power has been nuking Mars, then we would have to ask what for and would people not in the known be able to observe those detonations when they occurred using telescopes?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

How do we know, scientists are only basing assumptions on what they get back with images and atmospheric data compiled by computers programmed by humans with only earth experience.

You're literally just making this up

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

You're literally just making this up

Really, have you been to Mars?  Do you know anyone who has been there?  What exactly am I making up?  And do you kow what the word "literally" means?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.