Evidence of Nuclear Explosions on Mars

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by NorseMythology, Dec 16, 2014.

  1. If this turns out to be true it will require a vast change in our perception of our history and the universe in general.

    Brought to you by Dr John Brandenburg, the man who has a paper that has remained unchallenged for 3 years that unifies gravity and electromagnetism.

    His published papers can be found here

    http://tinyurl.com/lauvgh9

    And his credentials can be found here.

    http://astroreview.com/author/john-e-brandenburg-ph-d

    You can also see a biologist on a science blog try to dismiss him as a 'fruit bat'. Im sure to the biologists surprise, Brandenburg makes his appearence in the comment section and calls him out. Oddly enough the comments were then shut off for 'site maintenence' but every other article i checked out the comments were still functional. Suspicious? Maybe.

    That fun can be found here. At the top of this article is a link to the actual pdf paper.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/22/the-two-faces-of-je-brandenburg/

    In the comments Brandenburg says he couldnt publish this paper until Nasa and the Pentagon cleared it. Hmm? Interesting.

    For those of you who take the time to check this out, i welcome your discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. That shits cray

    Sent from my U670C using Grasscity Forum mobile app
     
  3. This is interesting. I wounder though, could it be possible for all of these radioactive chemicals to appear in such amounts, in the absence of any nuclear explosion?
     
    That is kinda creepy that the Pentagon had to clear his paper. I can only wonder what weird reason they have for their interest in this.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. How can a nuclear explosion take place on mars where there is no oxygen?
     
  5. At first he thought it was natural until he discovered evidence that didnt fit a natural explaination.
     
  6. Mars is red due to iron oxidation... which requires oxygen. He explains that in more detail.
     
  7. My apologies, I linked only the 2011 paper in which he presents the data assuming this was a natural event. Due to new data, he has drawn the conclusion their are signatures of fisson/fusion mixed explosions. "data is consistent with
    mixed fusion-fission explosions [2]. Imagery
    at the radioactive centers of the explosions shows no craters, consistent with ``airbursts.''"

    Thats quite frieghtening to me.
     
  8. All is as it should be on the Grasscity.
     
  9. The science forum just wouldn't be complete if we didn't have people bringing in conspiracy theories and calling it science..
     
  10. LOL
     
    The lies we've been told to keep us in the dark are finally being exposed
     
    FYI, according to sources I follow, the explosion was not on the surface
     
    See Project Camelot for very interesting interviews with people in the know
     
  11. Nuclear bombs don't need oxygen. Nukes use fission or fusion as the source of energy for the explosion.

    A fusion bomb is pretty much a tiny miniature sun, that lasts for a few moments.
     
  12. This is what people say when evidence doesn't fit their paradigm. They dont dispute the evidence, in fact they call it pseudoscience or conspiracy theory or try to discredit the scientist without looking at the data.

    Its no wonder we are still using an advanced 13th century Chinese technology to get to space. While I dont blame anyone for bring taken back by this claim, the best way to understand our history and the mechanisms of the universe is to let the data tell us what reality is. Our brains are hard wired to resist change according to biologist and philosopher Massimo Pigliucci (sp). First we had religious dogma slowing us down and now its science dogma.

    People always believe in the science dogma of their day, and those that come after will look back and realize their error. If we didnt entrench our suppositions, change would be undoubtedly quicker.

    From my personal experience, when I am researching any science I dont 'believe' anyone, I find it interesting and take mental notes. As I research and keep coming across common themes or threads, I give them more attention but never assume Ive found Truth per se. Be open, and dont be afraid to let go of a notion you once thought probably true. My worldview is constantly evolving, unless you hold your worldview to be absolutely true, yours should be too.

    Trolling is annoying but does not discourage me, other than the fact you are a fellow human being and are harming yourself and the progress of mankind
     
  13. Lol, like I said.. just wouldn't be complete without a conspiracy theorist. Just to spell it out for you, the theory that Mars experienced a nuclear event is just that, a theory. When you take a theory and present it and then make it sound like there is a conspiracy in trying to hide the truth, it is a conspiracy theory. In your first post, you turned it into a conspiracy when you made it sound like the site closed down the commenting.. followed with him having to get his paper approved by NASA and the Pentagon. You can say that's his claim, but if you spread someone else's bullshit.. you're still spreading bullshit. I wouldn't have been able to point out that this is a conspiracy theory if you didn't turn it into a conspiracy theory.. that's all on you bub.

    Just for shits and giggles, let's look at this theory. The theory is that Mars experienced a nuclear event that wiped out life on the planet. That Mars was home to an advanced civilization that got a lil too rowdy and was wiped out by another advanced civilization. This theory is based on Mars "artifacts" such as the face on Mars and radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere.

    First, the face on Mars has been shown to be an optical illusion.. since that photo, more photos of the "face" were taken and all look like a natural formation. You want to talk about being afraid of letting go of what you know? Speak to those who still believe that the face on Mars was artificially made to look like a face.. cause it wasn't. Your idle is guilty of that.

    Second, radioactive isotopes can and are formed naturally. We might not know the exact cause, but there may have even been natural nuclear events on Earth in the past. There may have been natural nuclear events on Mars as well.. and there really isn't any evidence that the isotopes discovered could only have been made by nuclear bombs.

    Third, if Earth experienced a nuclear holocaust.. not all life would be extinguished. There would be life that survives and even thrives in it. If Mars was like Earth, I see no reason to believe that there isn't microbial life that would of survived a nuclear attack on the planet. Granted, we haven't found any microbes on Mars yet.. there is no reason to jump to conclusions. There might not be any on Mars because Mars never experienced the proper conditions to bring about life.

    You mentioned your frustration with science and the academic process.. and I'm pretty sure the source of your frustration is actually you. Questioning things and presenting theories is all good.. thinking everything is a conspiracy is not. If you're incapable of presenting questions and theories without the conspiracy, then you and your conspiracy theories belong in Pandora's Box.. especially when you talk about the dogmas in science. That's an automatic fail.
     
  14. How do you distinguish a nuclear explosion and an impact crater after the fact? Sid we detect radiation?

    -yuri
     
  15.  
    The data detected was xenon isotopes in the atmosphere.. which can have a variety of causes. The theory focuses on xenon 129 and claims that it was made by nuclear blasts, but xenon 129 can and does form naturally as well.. such as iodine 129 decaying over millions of years into xenon 129. I'm not saying there for sure wasn't a nuclear event on Mars.. while the conditions today aren't suitable for it, there is a uranium deposit in Africa that is thought to have undergone natural nuclear fission. Something like that may have happened on Mars, but the reason this theory claims it was a nuclear attack centers around the belief that Mars once harbored intelligent life.. which more than likely stems from the 'face on Mars' that many people refuse to accept was just an optical illusion and not created by intelligent life.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Mars Face was subjected to 8-9 independent tests for artificiality and all indicated it was highly probable it is artificial. Argue with that data or keep your opinion to yourself. People see a face, computer tests dont see a face, but still show its highly probably artificial.

    Yuri, Brandenburg addresses your question in those links.
     
  17. #19 yurigadaisukida, Dec 17, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2014
    define artificial. that sounds subjective.

    To.me saying Mars surface "looks" artificial is the same as saying cells are intelligently designed

    Also I rarely click links cause phone suck. I only use forum app and never check gc on PC

    -yuri
     
  18. Ah damn that sucks. My phone i cant watch vid but i can click links. Well after work i can copy paste parts of it for you.

    I take it to mean "form not common in nature" like a pyramid. Not much is naturally shaped like a pyramid, so if you see one, it is highly probable it is artificial. Btw that is the wording used by those that did the tests. I am just relaying what they have said. Thats why i dont mind people calling bullshit on me because i have a source to back it up, they can argue with the experts, i am the middle man. I hope people dont take my word for what it is, they should question me, my source and everything else they come across.
     

Share This Page