Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 01:48:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 12:57:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 25, 2020, 01:46:24 PM

No CGI back then.

Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

It beggars belief that people believe this is legitimate film of an atomic detonation.

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Quote from: Stash on May 26, 2020, 02:53:09 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 01:48:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 12:57:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 25, 2020, 01:46:24 PM

No CGI back then.

Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

Per usual you assumptions are misguided and incorrect.

"The results of this test were incredible - more than ten vessels were sunk, while the landing craft from which the bomb hung was melted by the high temperatures, disappearing without a trace. The U.S.S. Arkansas, a battleship boasting tremendous WWII combat credentials, was thrust up in the air by the massive burst of water shot forth from the ocean before making a vertical descent and sinking to the seafloor. An instant after the explosion waves measuring over 20 meters in height rose from the area surrounding Bikini Atoll, quickly covering all nearby islands."

Sounds terrible ... but there is no evidence of any tsunami wave, sunk ships, dead fish, sea floor mud displaced, adjacent islands flooded , e.g. photos.

What good would any evidence do if you will simply call it fake like with the video? Why should anyone bother to look up anything if you are going to outright claim it's made up?

What good would any evidence do if you will simply call it fake like with the video? Why should anyone bother to look up anything if you are going to outright claim it's made up?

Heiwa is a conspiratard who refuses to believe anything he can't understand but is so inept that he understands nothing other that his own brilliance .

Does that explain it?
The only useful thing about Heiwa is that looking all this stuff up we learn a lot - otherwise he's a total waste of time.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 02:47:48 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 01:48:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 12:57:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 25, 2020, 01:46:24 PM

No CGI back then.

Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

It beggars belief that people believe this is legitimate film of an atomic detonation.

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Easy, just look at photos and films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and compare with films of Yokohama, Nagoya and Tokyo all bombed 1945 (+55 other towns). They all are all the same. Wooden/paper houses burnt down (by napalm) while concrete/brick buildings are intact. Steel bridges are not damaged while wooden bridges are. Etc, etc.
The a-bomb explosions were just Fake News to allow Japan to quickly surrender looked after by general D MacArthur and his buddy Hirohito. MacArthur and a Mr. Henry Lewis Stimson had recommended economic warfare against Japan already in the 1920's to get a war started and they had success when FDR became president. They all worked for the military industrial complex. The Manhattan project was run by Stimson that stole billions from tax payers. No a-bombs have ever been built in the USA! This Los Alamos, NM, place has never done any serious work. It is all propaganda since 1942. Only the ski slopes were appreciated by a certain Dane.

Quote from: Stash on May 26, 2020, 02:53:09 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 01:48:57 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 12:57:53 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 25, 2020, 01:46:24 PM

No CGI back then.

Really?
Maybe just clouds that hold formation against the magical blast then.
It all depends on what you want to grasp as CGI of those days. Overlays and what not would be a good start for them in those days.

And all the ships on the water surface around the water stem with crew watching the show don't heave, pitch or roll. The alleged a-bomb was 30 meters below the surface. But no sand is pushed out sideways to come up on surface outside the water stem. It is not easy to do trick film.

Per usual you assumptions are misguided and incorrect.

"The results of this test were incredible - more than ten vessels were sunk, while the landing craft from which the bomb hung was melted by the high temperatures, disappearing without a trace. The U.S.S. Arkansas, a battleship boasting tremendous WWII combat credentials, was thrust up in the air by the massive burst of water shot forth from the ocean before making a vertical descent and sinking to the seafloor. An instant after the explosion waves measuring over 20 meters in height rose from the area surrounding Bikini Atoll, quickly covering all nearby islands."

Sounds terrible ... but there is no evidence of any tsunami wave, sunk ships, dead fish, sea floor mud displaced, adjacent islands flooded , e.g. photos.

Untrue. Damage to the USS Independence from the Baker test blast:



More damage:

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 02:58:31 PM

Quote from: Stash on May 26, 2020, 02:55:41 PM

Muster up some evidence and you may have a leg to stand on. In the absence of evidence, I'm afraid you have nothing.

The evidence is right there in the picture and I have zero need to muster up anything else to people like you.

Correct, the evidence is right there in the picture: A nuclear bomb test captured on film in July, 1946 at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific. There's tons written about it as well as tons of footage and witnesses of the event.

I refuse to believe you're that naive.

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Hard to tell because there's never been such an event, as far as I'm concerned.

What good would any evidence do if you will simply call it fake like with the video? Why should anyone bother to look up anything if you are going to outright claim it's made up?

Look up something credible and not fake looking...but do it with the knowledge that you can honestly say of it being a reality.
You and others are of acceptance that this is all legit and yet you have zero proof of it.
Those who are arguing against it being legit also have zero proof of nuclear being fake, so in this case it's all down to scrutinising what's given out and this is where we differ, with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:01:08 AM

...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.

I am an eyewitness with plenty evidence! 1964 I talked to a Nobel Prize winner, MS, that had been asked by the Swedish government to build an a-bomb 1945. MS agreed and informed that all should be public. Not possible! All had to be 100% secret, bla, bla, bla. MS recommended that I did something else. So I went to Japan 1972/6 building seagoing oil tankers. I met people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki telling me how their towns and shipyards were napalm bombed 1945. No a-bombs. And then a ship of mine was repaired at Mombasa, Kenya, 1999. In the hotel bar I met a nice girl that (later) told me her father working for Wismut AG had helped Stalin build his fake a-bomb 1946/58 with uranium mined in Saxony! The latter info I checked in situ 1999-2016. No a-bomb uranium was mined in East Germany 1946/91. It was just communist propaganda supported by USA!

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Easy...

Oh, does this mean that you're actually going to answer my question?

...just look at photos and films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and compare with films of Yokohama, Nagoya and Tokyo all bombed 1945 (+55 other towns). They all are all the same. Wooden/paper houses burnt down (by napalm) while concrete/brick buildings are intact. Steel bridges are not damaged while wooden bridges are. Etc, etc.
The a-bomb explosions were just Fake News to allow Japan to quickly surrender looked after by general D MacArthur and his buddy Hirohito. MacArthur and a Mr. Henry Lewis Stimson had recommended economic warfare against Japan already in the 1920's to get a war started and they had success when FDR became president. They all worked for the military industrial complex. The Manhattan project was run by Stimson that stole billions from tax payers. No a-bombs have ever been built in the USA! This Los Alamos, NM, place has never done any serious work. It is all propaganda since 1942. Only the ski slopes were appreciated by a certain Dane.

No, I guess not.

Anders, why do you have so much trouble answering simple questions?   I don't care about fire bombing or conventional blasts.

Let me ask again:  What should a real atomic blast look like?

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Hard to tell because there's never been such an event, as far as I'm concerned.

Then how would you know it if one was to happen?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:01:08 AM

...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.

No.
The highest pedestal is given to those who have the authority to tell the stories which ordinary everyday people swallow and accept and the only evidence required is evidence that no ordinary person gets to see......including you, unless you want to show me any evidence that is irrefutable.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 11:54:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Hard to tell because there's never been such an event, as far as I'm concerned.

Then how would you know it if one was to happen?

If one was to happen I'd know it by what we're told about it.
If that doesn't happen and cannot be observed by myself then there's simply no real evidence for the reality of them.
Including for yourself, if you're honest.
You are reliant on following the narrative and that's about it...don't you agree? And if not, why not?

Quote from: Stash on May 27, 2020, 12:38:16 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:01:08 AM

...with only your side being given a higher pedestal due to mass belief in a storyline.

The highest pedestal is granted to those with overwhelming evidence; experimental, video, eyewitness accounts, etc. The lower pedestal is granted to those who have zero evidence such as yourself.

No.
The highest pedestal is given to those who have the authority to tell the stories which ordinary everyday people swallow and accept and the only evidence required is evidence that no ordinary person gets to see......including you, unless you want to show me any evidence that is irrefutable.

Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2020, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 11:54:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Hard to tell because there's never been such an event, as far as I'm concerned.

Then how would you know it if one was to happen?

If one was to happen I'd know it by what we're told about it.

But you have been told about it.  You just chose not to believe what you were told.  What would you have to hear to change your mind?

If that doesn't happen and cannot be observed by myself then there's simply no real evidence for the reality of them.

Not true.  There are countless people (including many civilians) who have personally witnessed atomic and nuclear blasts.  Residual radiation can hang around for many years.  Seismic recording stations pick up the rumblings of such blasts when they happen.  In fact, that's how the US confirmed North Korea's nuclear test claims.

Including for yourself, if you're honest.
You are reliant on following the narrative and that's about it...don't you agree? And if not, why not?

So what?  I understand that there are lots of real things that l that I will never get a chance to personally observe, and I think that you do too.  For example, neither you or I will ever get a chance to go to the bottom of the Marianas trench, but we can chose to believe or disbelieve the few videos and the people who say that they have been there.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 09:59:33 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Easy...

Oh, does this mean that you're actually going to answer my question?

Quote from: Heiwa on May 26, 2020, 09:59:33 PM

...just look at photos and films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and compare with films of Yokohama, Nagoya and Tokyo all bombed 1945 (+55 other towns). They all are all the same. Wooden/paper houses burnt down (by napalm) while concrete/brick buildings are intact. Steel bridges are not damaged while wooden bridges are. Etc, etc.
The a-bomb explosions were just Fake News to allow Japan to quickly surrender looked after by general D MacArthur and his buddy Hirohito. MacArthur and a Mr. Henry Lewis Stimson had recommended economic warfare against Japan already in the 1920's to get a war started and they had success when FDR became president. They all worked for the military industrial complex. The Manhattan project was run by Stimson that stole billions from tax payers. No a-bombs have ever been built in the USA! This Los Alamos, NM, place has never done any serious work. It is all propaganda since 1942. Only the ski slopes were appreciated by a certain Dane.

No, I guess not.

Anders, why do you have so much trouble answering simple questions?   I don't care about fire bombing or conventional blasts.

Let me ask again:  What should a real atomic blast look like?

Thanks for asking.
Explosive fission is not possible so an atomic blast is not possible.

Explosive fission is not possible so an atomic blast is not possible.

Incorrect!
Just because YOU cannot understand "explosive fission" does not mean that "an atomic blast is not possible".

Quote from: Heiwa on May 27, 2020, 05:08:32 PM

Explosive fission is not possible so an atomic blast is not possible.

Incorrect!
Just because YOU cannot understand "explosive fission" does not mean that "an atomic blast is not possible".

Just show explosive fission in a laboratory, e.g. that a million uranium atoms fission in a nano-second, and we can discuss. I fully agree that normal fission exists inside, e.g. nuclear power plants, but explosive fission inside an a-bomb is just propaganda.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 27, 2020, 07:23:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 27, 2020, 05:08:32 PM

Explosive fission is not possible so an atomic blast is not possible.

Incorrect!
Just because YOU cannot understand "explosive fission" does not mean that "an atomic blast is not possible".

Just show explosive fission in a laboratory, e.g. that a million uranium atoms fission in a nano-second, and we can discuss. I fully agree that normal fission exists inside, e.g. nuclear power plants, but explosive fission inside an a-bomb is just propaganda.

As you know very well and have been told numerous times "a million uranium atoms" cannot cause an explosive fission.

At least a critical mass is needed to simply sustain fission though that critical mass can be modified.
For an isolated sphere of ²³⁵U the critical mass is about 52 kg.
If the sphere of ²³⁵U is enclosed in a neutron reflector the critical mass is reduced to about 15 kg.

Neither of those will cause explosive fission without a suitable initiator to start the fission fast enough.

Surely aren't as ignorant of these things as you make out.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 27, 2020, 10:17:25 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on May 27, 2020, 07:23:28 PM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 27, 2020, 05:08:32 PM

Explosive fission is not possible so an atomic blast is not possible.

Incorrect!
Just because YOU cannot understand "explosive fission" does not mean that "an atomic blast is not possible".

Just show explosive fission in a laboratory, e.g. that a million uranium atoms fission in a nano-second, and we can discuss. I fully agree that normal fission exists inside, e.g. nuclear power plants, but explosive fission inside an a-bomb is just propaganda.

As you know very well and have been told numerous times "a million uranium atoms" cannot cause an explosive fission.

At least a critical mass is needed to simply sustain fission though that critical mass can be modified.
For an isolated sphere of ²³⁵U the critical mass is about 52 kg.
If the sphere of ²³⁵U is enclosed in a neutron reflector the critical mass is reduced to about 15 kg.

Neither of those will cause explosive fission without a suitable initiator to start the fission fast enough.

Surely aren't as ignorant of these things as you make out.

I know all what you say. Fact however remains that no minimum size critical size mass of any matter has ever produced explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere under scientific control 1945-2020. Nobody has been able to confirm the 1945 US claims of explosive fission. All was/is top secret! No peer review ever. Only clowns give interviews to media. Etc, etc. Only 'evidence' of explosive fission is photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. which show no evidence of any explosive fission. Aha! Some Soviet scientists confirmed the US claims 1949. If not they would have been shot. But today is 2020 ...

I know all what you say. Fact however remains that no minimum size critical size mass of any matter has ever produced explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere under scientific control 1945-2020.

Of course nobody has produce "explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere"!

I know all what you say. Fact however remains that no minimum size critical size mass of any matter has ever produced explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere under scientific control 1945-2020. Nobody has been able to confirm the 1945 US claims of explosive fission. All was/is top secret! No peer review ever. Only clowns give interviews to media. Etc, etc. Only 'evidence' of explosive fission is photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. which show no evidence of any explosive fission. Aha! Some Soviet scientists confirmed the US claims 1949. If not they would have been shot. But today is 2020 ...

Nobody has detonated 10 tons of TNT on their desk in a lab either.

Nobody has crashed a Jet airliner into their lab bench.

Nobody tested the strength of an object by driving a Mack truck at full speed through the wall of their laboratory and into their desk.

Nobody has put the business end of an Atlas rocket on their desk and looked into it when it fires.

Of course nobody is going to set off a nuclear explosion inside a lab. It's insane to even suggest it, or shows a very deep flawed understanding of how nuclear explosions work. I suspect both.

Quote from: Heiwa on May 28, 2020, 02:25:16 AM

I know all what you say. Fact however remains that no minimum size critical size mass of any matter has ever produced explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere under scientific control 1945-2020. Nobody has been able to confirm the 1945 US claims of explosive fission. All was/is top secret! No peer review ever. Only clowns give interviews to media. Etc, etc. Only 'evidence' of explosive fission is photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. which show no evidence of any explosive fission. Aha! Some Soviet scientists confirmed the US claims 1949. If not they would have been shot. But today is 2020 ...

Nobody has detonated 10 tons of TNT on their desk in a lab either.

Nobody has crashed a Jet airliner into their lab bench.

Nobody tested the strength of an object by driving a Mack truck at full speed through the wall of their laboratory and into their desk.

Nobody has put the business end of an Atlas rocket on their desk and looked into it when it fires.

Of course nobody is going to set off a nuclear explosion inside a lab. It's insane to even suggest it, or shows a very deep flawed understanding of how nuclear explosions work. I suspect both.

Sorry, intelligent, sound, normal people like me test new things in laboratories, etc. to avoid hurting people. Only criminals do it otherwise in secret locations, etc.

Quote from: JJA on May 28, 2020, 09:43:42 AM

Quote from: Heiwa on May 28, 2020, 02:25:16 AM

I know all what you say. Fact however remains that no minimum size critical size mass of any matter has ever produced explosive fission in a laboratory anywhere under scientific control 1945-2020. Nobody has been able to confirm the 1945 US claims of explosive fission. All was/is top secret! No peer review ever. Only clowns give interviews to media. Etc, etc. Only 'evidence' of explosive fission is photos of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc. which show no evidence of any explosive fission. Aha! Some Soviet scientists confirmed the US claims 1949. If not they would have been shot. But today is 2020 ...

Nobody has detonated 10 tons of TNT on their desk in a lab either.

Nobody has crashed a Jet airliner into their lab bench.

Nobody tested the strength of an object by driving a Mack truck at full speed through the wall of their laboratory and into their desk.

Nobody has put the business end of an Atlas rocket on their desk and looked into it when it fires.

Of course nobody is going to set off a nuclear explosion inside a lab. It's insane to even suggest it, or shows a very deep flawed understanding of how nuclear explosions work. I suspect both.

Sorry, intelligent, sound, normal people like me test new things in laboratories, etc. to avoid hurting people. Only criminals do it otherwise in secret locations, etc.

Sorry, intelligent, sound, normal people do not set off nuclear explosions in laboratories to avoid hurting people. 

Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?

It doesn't matter what I believe.
You do not know for sure that nuclear bombs, exist.
You are happy to accept they do because you are happy to follow mass opinion that was garnered through storylines by so called authoritative people.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:23:40 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 27, 2020, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 26, 2020, 11:54:26 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 26, 2020, 05:37:46 PM

Then what do you think that a legitimate film of an atomic explosion should look like?

Hard to tell because there's never been such an event, as far as I'm concerned.

Then how would you know it if one was to happen?

If one was to happen I'd know it by what we're told about it.

But you have been told about it.  You just chose not to believe what you were told.  What would you have to hear to change your mind?

Yes, I have been told about it and also shown video of what I'm supposed to believe is a nuclear reality.
What I haven't done is to witness anything like that, so when I do I'll accept and believe it and until then, I won't.

You simply accept it and believe it without actually knowing it to be a reality.

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:23:40 PM

If that doesn't happen and cannot be observed by myself then there's simply no real evidence for the reality of them.

Not true.  There are countless people (including many civilians) who have personally witnessed atomic and nuclear blasts.  Residual radiation can hang around for many years.  Seismic recording stations pick up the rumblings of such blasts when they happen.  In fact, that's how the US confirmed North Korea's nuclear test claims.

And this is the storyline you adhere to.
Did King Arthur pull a sword from a stone?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 27, 2020, 12:23:40 PM

Including for yourself, if you're honest.
You are reliant on following the narrative and that's about it...don't you agree? And if not, why not?

So what?  I understand that there are lots of real things that l that I will never get a chance to personally observe, and I think that you do too.

Of course.
I won't get to observe many many things that are told to be a truth. And this is where we differ.
I work from a mindset of, believe nothing and question everything.
I can accept many things without believing them if I personally cannot verify them.

  For example, neither you or I will ever get a chance to go to the bottom of the Marianas trench, but we can chose to believe or disbelieve the few videos and the people who say that they have been there.

I think logic is enough to dictate the trench is impossible for human travel but you accept it or believe it because you trust the storylines, even though that storyline was told and sold by a film maker.

Quote from: Stash on May 27, 2020, 01:13:46 PM

Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?

It doesn't matter what I believe.
You do not know for sure that nuclear bombs, exist.
You are happy to accept they do because you are happy to follow mass opinion that was garnered through storylines by so called authoritative people.

I know that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that nuclear weapons do exist. From eyewitnesses to video and everything inbetween.

There is zero evidence for a dome over the earth and a sun as a projection from some carbonite crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Yet, you believe that without ever having witnessed it yourself nor any other human ever having observed these things. So I don't understand your contradiction.

On the one hand you dismiss something that has mountains of evidence, yet on the other, fully embrace things that have zero evidence. Have you ever applied your own logic to your belief systems? Like since you can't verify a dome and carbonite sun and no one else has in the history of humanity that perhaps they don't exist?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 28, 2020, 11:37:20 AM

Quote from: Stash on May 27, 2020, 01:13:46 PM

Do you have to have personal access to everything in order to believe anything is real? For instance, you believe there is a dome over the earth and the sun is a projection from some crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Have you personally had access to and verified those two physical things?

It doesn't matter what I believe.
You do not know for sure that nuclear bombs, exist.
You are happy to accept they do because you are happy to follow mass opinion that was garnered through storylines by so called authoritative people.

I know that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that nuclear weapons do exist. From eyewitnesses to video and everything inbetween.

There's a tremendous amount of evidence that Santa exists. Does he exist?

There is zero evidence for a dome over the earth and a sun as a projection from some carbonite crystals and such buried in a hole at the north pole. Yet, you believe that without ever having witnessed it yourself nor any other human ever having observed these things. So I don't understand your contradiction.

I'm not asking you to believe my thoughts. I'm being asked.......no.....told to believe in nuclear bombs by authority and peer pressure.

On the one hand you dismiss something that has mountains of evidence, yet on the other, fully embrace things that have zero evidence.

And yet you dismiss something that has mountains of evidence, in Santa. Right?

Have you ever applied your own logic to your belief systems? Like since you can't verify a dome and carbonite sun and no one else has in the history of humanity that perhaps they don't exist?

If you or anyone else doesn't believe they exist then they don't exist.
I certainly don't believe in a spinning ball we supposedly walk upon, so I have to try and work out what it is we are existing as part of and this is where I'm at.

When I start telling you it's official, then you can have a real go at me...but not before you prove the world you believe you're living on.

Sorry, intelligent, sound, normal people like me test new things in laboratories, etc. to avoid hurting people.

But they did test the bombs in laboratories.  It just so happens that those particular laboratories were remote locations to avoid hurting people, just like intelligent, sound, normal people would set up.

Only criminals do it otherwise in secret locations, etc.

The fact that we know that many of those tests occurred at Bikini Atoll and the Nevada test sites proves that they are not secret locations.  Again, there were plenty of tourists who went to Las Vegas to watch the test blasts, so it's kinda hard to keep a location like that a secret.