It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by watchitburn
reply to post by projectvxn
Absolutely,
I am not doubting that a nuclear explosion occurred. I just find it hard to believe it happened naturally.
Still, Beaty expressed doubts, saying the geological conditions on this planet and Mars have existed for millennia -- what exists has existed for a long time, and there are few sudden changes. “Rocks are what they are. [A natural nuclear reaction] could happen in another billion years, but it is not something to make you want to go home to your family and move to the mountains right away,” he said.
Dr. Lars Borg, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called Brandenburg’s conclusions unsurprising -- and part of known geological processes, not a nuclear reaction.
"We've looked at Martian meteorites for 15 years, and looked in detail at the isotopic measurements .. and not a single person out of hundreds worrying about this have thought there could have been a nuclear explosion on Mars," he told FoxNews.com.
Unstable uranium isotopes are found naturally on the earth, and about 50 times more plentiful largely in India and the USA are deposits of Thorium as well, which begs the question of why we aren't using the more controllable and more power potential thorium in our nuclear power plants instead of uranium and more dangerous plutonium is beyond me.
Thanks for pointing out the garbage in the article, it's pretty bad, like the reason why Mars is red, as you said.
Originally posted by Illustronic
The article is full of 'what ifs' garbage, Mars isn't 'red' because of a supposed nuclear detonation, it's red from the minerals covering the surface that have been there shortly after Mars cooled because it doesn't have the mass to have maintained an electromagnetic field like earth has, so it's being blasted for billions of years by the sun's harmful radiation with no protection.
From the article;
Dr. Lars Borg, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, called Brandenburg’s conclusions unsurprising -- and part of known geological processes, not a nuclear reaction.
"We've looked at Martian meteorites for 15 years, and looked in detail at the isotopic measurements .. and not a single person out of hundreds worrying about this have thought there could have been a nuclear explosion on Mars," he told FoxNews.com.
You need to read more carefully, "they" aren't saying that, "they" are calling BS, it's only one guy saying this and nobody else agrees with him. Didn't you catch the "not a single person out of hundreds worrying about this have thought there could have been a nuclear explosion on Mars" in the story? It seems as though you missed that key point.
Originally posted by watchitburn
So they are saying this detonation was equivalent to 1 Million Megaton yield device.
What are your thoughts?