Dr Oppenheimer on Ancient Places Destroyed by Atomic Weapons.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Actually, "biological" and "chemical" warfare is not a new thing, and yes, was used in times way back in history.

I'm not talking about Romans using a canister of nerve gas, or anything like that.

However, it was not unknown for enemy forces which had besieged a city, to use catapults to send plague victims bodies over the walls of a city. Dumping dead bodies of people and animals in water supplies to try and poison them.

So while it may not be the same thing as we think of today, it was still something that was done back then.

Harte I was most certainly under the impression from one of your earlier posts in a discussion with myself when I had not long joined ATS that you were an archaeologist which was fostered by your own comment's, so You are an engineer, well as one whom also studied that particular field as indeed you may know from that previous discussion I am well versed in how it and all scientifically related disciplines are indeed far more intellectually based than the Pseudo sciences of. Archaeology, anthropology and history which are based on case study and not observation, they are playing detective with missing information and unlike the law once new data casts doubt on there stance it should be a damning indictment of there past convictions and they should indeed modify there approach accordingly but let's be fair WHEN DID THEY, do you truly expect us to see that the plush, warm bursery sucking back sides whom have built there reputations and doctorates on believed occurance rather than empirical observation with adjustable boundary's are any better than we whom believe in the truth of a lost age or are YOU pushing an agenda,.
In that previous post you claimed that you were standing up for the truth and you were a teacher, WELL WHAT IS THE TRUTH, because at the moment it seem's to be a case of the truth is in the eye of the beholder, now you have made a direct attack on my belief but HERE IS EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE against the newer age given by egyptologist for the Sphynxe in egypt, now as you know they had to rush to find an ALTERNATIVE explanation as for instance our friend my Zawass was not too happy with being shown up by a GEOLOGISTS assertion's.
www.robertschoch.com...
Now I am well aware of your use of subtle and not so subtle Character Assassination to undermine arguments (a lot of people do it and often unconsciously so I am not diverting to that), indeed worryingly it seem's to be a very prevalent tactic on ATS with a number of operator's acting like information fire hoses clamping down on many forms of speculation and stopping debates dead as though they are there to turn the information exchange off, but I never classed you as this as in the past your argument were often but not alway's rather eloquent and alway's informative even if we never alway's agreed with your sources just as you do not our's.

Let's give them an example of a past argument over ancient india and it's past possible techologys (not I for one do not equate Atalla with atlantis as atlantis was a plato myth but I believe there is vase amount's of ignored evidence and even suppressed evidence such as the city north west of cube AND IT IS A CITY so please! give us you CURRENT opinion on that, I actually equate Atalla with the Antarctic and as you may know there has indeed been reports that parts of Antarctica may have been forrested up to half a million years ago, Mammoth in siberia were huge with a relatively small surface area and a heavy insulation of thick fur yet they did mammoth with buttercups still in there mouths and digestive trackts that had been frozen very fast indicating that the climate changed radically in an extremely short space of time Non of this can be explained by your assertion so HOW IS THIS not a simple belief of your own - more people do not alway's mean it is correct as this little mound of evidence tend's to be rejected or even ignored by the MAINSTREAM)

This thread goes into a debate about ancient india from the ancient alient point of view, if you read the posts though many are very relavent to this thread indeed.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=

Oh and feel free to tear robert schoch apart (I wish he was here to defend himself) as I am sure you can find rafts of arguments CLAIMING and that is all they do, to prove he and the other geologists whom where shown sample's and given the area of the occurance but denied the information it was the body and enclosure of the sphynx as they would have rightly feared stepping on the egyptologists toes as though they the geologists are the scientists it is the egyptologists whom are the wealthy and influential group and as you know money buys university bursery's and seat's on the faculty.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Indeed and chemical/biological warfare may go back as far into the past as humans had spear's as they could coat the tip's but of course they were not all primatives and some lived in sophisticated society's.
Poison gas in sealed clay jar's may have been used by the assyrian's but evidence is sketchy on that still there is this case study of a third century battle between rome and persia.
news.bbc.co.uk...

reply to post by eriktheawful


Just picking up an earlier point you raised about 'where are all the highways etc?' I wondered about this and thought it might simply not be applicable. Our oil supply is limited and despite desperate efforts by the oil wealthy to find any means of maintaining their hold on power supplies etc, had a previous civilisation used the engine as we have, we would probably not have found oil as they could well have used it all up or only found small deposits etc.

I suspect the laboratory or nuclear structures we have been discussing could also have been totally destroyed after either a natural phenomena or a nuclear one. The reason being to my way of thinking is that the main structures we have from ancient civilisations are built of stone and so have the mass and weight to withstand floods and other destructive forces. Its unlikely that one would build everything in stone so brick etc would not have the strength to withstand really fierce hurricane, flood or whatever. Pretty much the only thing that topples stone are earthquakes and a trip round Pergammon showed me what would be left.

I rather wonder if we would have a chance of finding out about a previous civilisation's power supply were it from something like oil. I do believe that when one looks at something simple like paleothic man's knowledge of the stages of the moon and later the development of the measurements at many of the ancient stone monuments, whether this knowledge was either from thousands of years of observation or from a previous civisilation's technology that we are still unaware of, or how they utilised something we have but haven't discovered other applications for.

We are looking at the past through the eyes of our technology but perhaps our technology which is polluting and dirty, isn't the way previous civilisations lived their lives. We also have only comparatively recently started to recycle but we know that previous peoples in the Amnazon use to store their waste behind their homes and recycled it as fertiliser. Something so simple as that shows the care, whether out of necessity or not, that ancient people took of their environment. Another fascinating thing is the speed at which we developed our technology, it has happened so quickly, is it because we are amazingly innovative and ingenious - or are we simply tapping into an earlier memory? - all grist for the mill of curiosity.

reply to post by LABTECH767


I have thoroughly enjoyed many of the books by modern-day reseachers because they are not shackled like the majority of archaeologists. The problem is that with archaeologists if they put forward a theory that is against the ideals of either the academics or peer archaeologists they suffer professionally and cannot get grants or funding for their work so they are effectively silenced. Frances Prior was a good example of this when he put forward ideas that were 'uncomfortable' and discussions with Tony Robinson have been illuminating as to what he was up against before he retired.

I do think also that the public are not as gullible as some here would like to believe and the quality of many of the books on ancient sites and the questions and answers they pose are of a high standard and well researched, simply because of the flack some die-hards like to peddle.

We are lucky that there are a number of researchers out there in print who can afford to investigate and its their passion to find answers free of the influence of our institutions that are the leading lights into our past. There are also signs of young archaelogists trying to hatch farther afield than the boundary put upon them - I still laugh when I think of the young Germans getting a sample of the blue paint from a cartouche and throwing Dr Hawass's theories out of the window . Although I doubt we will see much of a change in the Egyptian history books.

reply to post by eriktheawful


Its a disgusting idea of plague victim's bodies flying through the air at one.

I think we have possibly lost touch with a lot of our herbal knowledge, particularly since allopathic medicine took centre stage, but I must admit to wondering whether the ancient tribes in places like the Amazon, where there was once a huge civilisation or huge civilisations would have used poisoned blow torches and arrows in warfare? I have never read about this. The only thing that comes to mind is that during the so-called Goddess and luna worship period society seemed more concerned with learning - as people were living longer and so able to teach from their knowledge and experience the younger generations, and also that trading was very important to them and we are slowly finding out about just how far trade routes were developed. It seems as though its only once the sun worshippers and the patriarchal societies established themselves that warfare seems to have started up in earnest. With the specialised knowledge of the cosmos it does follow that there would have been other areas that ancient people's knowledge also excelled and chemistry, maths and physics etc would obviously have appealed also.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Someone may have mentioned this, as I usually reply to the OP before reading the full thread...
But I'm sure even the Bible has a mention of weapons that will cause skin sores, and teeth & hair will fall out due to after effects.

I will have a look for the passage to share.

Very interesting that this is one of the lesser known testimonies of the Father Of Destruction... if even just the sperm donor of the analogy.

S&F

Peace.


EDIT: Cannot seem to find a source for biblical tales of such. Which is strange because I definitely have come across such a claim, feel free to ignore it, but hopefully others have also seen this on their internet excursions, I don't want to seem like I'm filling the thread with mumbo-jumbo.
Also sure I have seen the same claims about certain translations of Sanskrit.
Alas I will return with information. Apologies.

Peace.


2nd EDIT: Actually, apparently it's from the Mahabharata. However it seems to have been exposed as a mistranslation.
ancientaliensdebunked.com...

I apologise for wasting people's time.

Peace.

LABTECH767
Harte I was most certainly under the impression from one of your earlier posts in a discussion with myself when I had not long joined ATS that you were an archaeologist which was fostered by your own comment's,

I'd like to see these comments of mine. Could you quote them, or are they simply your misinterpretations?

LABTECH767
so You are an engineer, well as one whom also studied that particular field as indeed you may know from that previous discussion I am well versed in how it and all scientifically related disciplines are indeed far more intellectually based than the Pseudo sciences of. Archaeology, anthropology and history which are based on case study and not observation, they are playing detective with missing information and unlike the law once new data casts doubt on there stance it should be a damning indictment of there past convictions and they should indeed modify there approach accordingly but let's be fair WHEN DID THEY,

The fact that you are yourself unaware that these "convictions" never existed (they are only mere conjecture and freely admitted to be so by scientists in those fields) and that such conjectures have been found wrong many, many times - resulting in a new paradigm in the field - is not an indication that these scientists are up to no good, as you seem to suggest.

Did you know that, when Petrie was first digging around at Giza, it was thought that the Great Pyramid was more than 6,000 years old?
Theat's one example, since they no longer think this and the claim is no longer part of any further reasoning.
Other notable and more recent changes involve the discovery of Denisovans and Homo floresiensis species, both previously unknown and unguessed at.

Haven't we had this conversation before?
At any rate, that answers your question "when did they." Obviously, these are only three examples, but the fact is, those fields are constantly changing their paradigms (of course,) since it is the nature of their studies (as you point out.)

That said, any thinking person would agree that there is a difference between the "soft" sciences and the "hard" ones.

LABTECH767
do you truly expect us to see that the plush, warm bursery sucking back sides whom have built there reputations and doctorates on believed occurance rather than empirical observation with adjustable boundary's are any better than we whom believe in the truth of a lost age or are YOU pushing an agenda,.

My agenda is to state the facts. Facts are immutable.

BTW, there is no "empirical evidence" for an older date for the sphinx. You too easily allow yourself to be misled on this, and other, matters.

Harte

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


I suspect what you refer may even be in one of the manuscripts of that time and not in the bible. What I am thinking of is a description about the special clothing and the sores and sickness that the men who carried the Ark of the Covenant received. I seem to remember that one lad touched the Ark and died immediately. Its a very long time since I read the Bible from cover to cover so I can't be completely sure. We know of the battle of Jericho where they supposedly caused the walls to simply disintegrate and tumble, however, archaeology shows us that the time period for Joshua and the demise of Jericho are comletely wrong so what the Ark supposedly destroyed and the battle referred to is a mystery. We also know about Sodom and Gomorrah which again are interestingly destroyed by God who used some terrifying technology. Fortunately for us God seems to have taken off with his destructive forces and left this planet alone or perhaps he was defeated and that is why we have heard nothing of him for over 2000 years. Its a fascinating thought especially if one uses the term God as a superior Lord or man or being, which incidentally the first Council at Nicea took some time considering whether Jesus was a man or a God.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Thank you for this information.
You're most likely correct that it was manuscript of the times rather than a Bible passage.
I'm sure even the book of Revelation has mention of a war, which is fought with weapons that come from the Ocean(missiles launched from submarines???) but that's actually supposed to be prophetic rather than historical data.

I will look into the stories you mentioned.
The Ark is an interesting theory that it may have been radioactive, hence the almost instantaneous death.
Reminds me of the reactor (I think) in Chernobyl (again memory may be impaired) which leaked and has nuclear/radioactive waste which solidified some sort of substance, supposedly it would kill a grown man almost instantly depending on length of exposure... I hope I can find the link, the picture taken had to be taken through a mirror around a door with special equipment.

Peace.

LINK: nautil.us...

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


Hah. That's not instantaneous at all...

In the bible he dropped dead the instant he touched the ark. Maybe some type of electrical discharge. It says Uzzah was BURNED by the wrath of God. Or smitten in some translations which still implies some type of concussive shock.

reply to post by raymundoko


Glad I could make you laugh.

In all seriousness though I did say "almost instantaneous" depending on length of exposure.
The source claims 300 seconds and that's death within 2 days.
So I'm estimating that 600 second would give 24hours. 1200 seconds 12hours. An hour around this would probably cause someone to drop dead instantly.
Now imagining The Ark was a many times more powerful than this blob of solidified "elephants foot"...seeing as it is The Ark, one of the most powerful weapons ever according to the Bible, 2 days could surely become instant.

However without drifting too far I said it reminded me, not that it was an exact replica of the case at hand.

Then again I guess Chernobyl is a "Lost Civilisation" now. Caused by radiation. So I guess haven't drifted too far.
Oppenheimer wouldn't have been too upset either way. He seemed to enjoy building Genocidal Death in a lab.

Don't really like "Mad Professors", but I don't hate them either.
I'm sure they are very interesting if not also very bizarre people.

Peace.

reply to post by ChuckNasty


What isotope was that?

reply to post by CharlieSpeirs


Sorry, I wasn't laughing at you at all. Didn't mean to come across as that. But if something was so radioactive that when he touched it he died it would have killed everyone around it as well. And there was no 300, 1200, 1 hour exposure. It literally says the instant he touched it he died. I doubt the ark contained any type of radioactive material, otherwise Moses would have died a lot younger than 120 years old

reply to post by raymundoko


The interesting thing about the Ark is that we know of no power source able to give an electric shock and it is never reported how the ark was powered or, in fact what it could do. As currently and then it was thought imposssible to store electricity an electric shock seems doubtful surely.

A tv programme actually considered the ark to have been some form of drum and located part of this drum. There is so much speculation about the ark that its probably grown out of all proportion and we know the biblical account of the walls at Jericho meeting their fate at the insistence of the ark is wrong as Joshua and Jericho when it had walls didn't meet..

However if we take the idea that the tablets given to Moses by God and a piece of manna were inside then you are left with the problem of how did Moses handle the tablets, were they radioactive? was that why God said he wouldn't see the promised land. Grist for that ever turning mill.

reply to post by raymundoko


No worries I don't mind anyways.
I should have also mentioned in my last post that Electricity sounded much more likely for the Ark.
Seemed like I was defending my original theory but truly I was just contemplating.
Forgot to say that Electricity seemed like a much better guess.

Peace.

Shiloh7
reply to post by raymundoko

 

The interesting thing about the Ark is that we know of no power source able to give an electric shock and it is never reported how the ark was powered or, in fact what it could do. As currently and then it was thought imposssible to store electricity an electric shock seems doubtful surely.

Gold gilding on the inside of the wooden box and on the outside would act as a large capacitor, assuming the inner gold did not contact the outer. Such a capacitor could easily be made completely by accident.

Such a capacitor could be charged to a deadly level by simply rubbing it, if you rub it long enough.

Instant death would come if you touched it on both seperate layers of gold at the same time.

Harte

reply to post by Shiloh7


God told Moses he wouldn't see the promised land because he took credit for getting water from a rock. God was angry with him for this and told Aaron that he would die before seeing it and he told Moses he would never step foot on it. At 120 years old God took Moses to the mountain to overlook the promised Land and Moses died, apparently still youthful in appearance relatively speaking. Doesn't exactly sound like someone who had been exposed to radioactive material for 40 years of his life.

Also, the Ark was built of wood, then inlaid and outlaid with gold and covered with a removable top similarly built. This would have actually been a great capacitor. The items in the Ark were Aaron's rod which grew flowers, Mana from heaven, the 10 Commandments (the second pair) and shekinah (The glory of god). Eventually it was just the commandments and shekinah according to Solomon. In fact, the Holy of Holy's in the Tabernacle wasn't holy until the Ark was placed in it. Once the Ark was placed in it anyone who entered would die if they weren't allowed to be there and in the proper dress. High priests even had ropes tied to their foot in case they were struck down so they could be pulled out. Bells around their waste would alert the people in the Holy if they had died as they would suddenly be silent.

I also forgot about when the Philistines stole the Ark. Everywhere they took it people were afflicted by problems. In once case, 70 men were struck dead just by getting close to it.

Me personally, even though I am a scientist through and through, believe in god So from my point of view, God did it...I just want to know how

lol a few more to 10

3 more