Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

Quote from: watchayakan on December 04, 2009, 01:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 03, 2009, 10:51:53 PM

Quote from: watchayakan on December 03, 2009, 06:55:20 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 01, 2009, 11:51:58 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 11:36:17 PM

Quote from: Raist on November 25, 2009, 11:23:23 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 01:45:06 PM

What is?

Science. If only one answer is right and it is constantly changing it would for all intents and purposes always be wrong.

Hardly.  Science is capable of making changes based on new data, something pseudo-science (FET included), philosophy,  and religion are never capable of doing.  Science is self-correcting and evolving with each new discovery.  Also, scientists are capable of saying something that the "Woo" crowd is never capable of saying: I dont know....yet.

Yes, but if science is always changing, doesn't that mean that it is always wrong? Or are you saying the truth changes as well? I'm sure that there are several theorem's that prove that science has to be wrong if it is always changing. The mean value theorem would be one as long as the answer in the beginning and the end are different.

There's your problem.  Science does not go to ascertain truth at all.  It's simply a collection of observational data, or facts, and an attempt to explain them cohesively, hypotheses and theories and models.  What is truth and what is not is not up to science.  The chance that it could always be wrong, Popper's falsifiability, is an important part of the epistemology of science.

So, science is never congruent with the truth? Is that similar to saying it's always wrong?

I never said that.  Science may be 100% truth right now for all I know or 0%.  It just doesn't matter.

So for this moment it's the truth but now it will change back to lies?

Oh.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were going to ignore what I said and think of what you want me to say to fit your preconceived notions.  I'll exit this conversation now then.  But hey, at least I am giving you one more chance to manipulate my words.

Quote from: Raist on December 07, 2009, 11:04:36 AM

Quote from: watchayakan on December 04, 2009, 01:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on December 03, 2009, 10:51:53 PM

Quote from: watchayakan on December 03, 2009, 06:55:20 PM

Quote from: Raist on December 01, 2009, 11:51:58 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 11:36:17 PM

Quote from: Raist on November 25, 2009, 11:23:23 PM

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 25, 2009, 01:45:06 PM

What is?

Science. If only one answer is right and it is constantly changing it would for all intents and purposes always be wrong.

Hardly.  Science is capable of making changes based on new data, something pseudo-science (FET included), philosophy,  and religion are never capable of doing.  Science is self-correcting and evolving with each new discovery.  Also, scientists are capable of saying something that the "Woo" crowd is never capable of saying: I dont know....yet.

Yes, but if science is always changing, doesn't that mean that it is always wrong? Or are you saying the truth changes as well? I'm sure that there are several theorem's that prove that science has to be wrong if it is always changing. The mean value theorem would be one as long as the answer in the beginning and the end are different.

There's your problem.  Science does not go to ascertain truth at all.  It's simply a collection of observational data, or facts, and an attempt to explain them cohesively, hypotheses and theories and models.  What is truth and what is not is not up to science.  The chance that it could always be wrong, Popper's falsifiability, is an important part of the epistemology of science.

So, science is never congruent with the truth? Is that similar to saying it's always wrong?

I never said that.  Science may be 100% truth right now for all I know or 0%.  It just doesn't matter.

So for this moment it's the truth but now it will change back to lies?

Oh.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were going to ignore what I said and think of what you want me to say to fit your preconceived notions.  I'll exit this conversation now then.  But hey, at least I am giving you one more chance to manipulate my words.

I accept your concession and apology. Another win for FE.

I think that was tongue in cheek, or dont you read people well? lol

I think that was tongue in cheek, or dont you read people well? lol

No, he was being sarcastic, I was being tongue in cheek. Do you not understand basic terms?

Quote from: EireEngineer on December 08, 2009, 08:13:43 AM

I think that was tongue in cheek, or dont you read people well? lol

No, he was being sarcastic, I was being tongue in cheek. Do you not understand basic terms?

Congrats at misinterpreting his words again, and also showing a perfect definition of hypocrisy.

Don't know if this has been mentioned: what about all the children born after Hiroshima / Nagasaki which had all sorts of birth defects?

Quote from: Raist on December 08, 2009, 08:15:59 AM

Quote from: EireEngineer on December 08, 2009, 08:13:43 AM

I think that was tongue in cheek, or dont you read people well? lol

No, he was being sarcastic, I was being tongue in cheek. Do you not understand basic terms?

Congrats at misinterpreting his words again, and also showing a perfect definition of hypocrisy.

Don't know if this has been mentioned: what about all the children born after Hiroshima / Nagasaki which had all sorts of birth defects?

I didn't misinterpret his words. I corrected him and mimicked him. Do keep up.

So your new argument is retard babies?

Quote from: Moonlit on January 13, 2009, 10:51:25 AM

Quote from: Violent on January 13, 2009, 08:28:12 AM

Thank you for your fair response.

The damage to Hiroshima is not proof of nuclear bombs.

No, but it is pretty damning evidence.  What else do you purpose did that sort of damage?  I can't watch the video.  They're blocked on my work computer.

Well the damage from Hiroshima looks just like the results of the fire bombing of Tokyo:

Nuclear Blast aftermath at Hiroshima: http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg

Firebombing aftermath at Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg

The majority of the structures in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rickety termite eaten poor Japanese wooden houses.  Many still question why those two cities were chosen as targets since they had no military value. Up until then every Japanese city was chosen based on military value. It's clear that those two old wooden cities were chosen for maximum propaganda value.

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

I don't think nuclear weapons exist.  Nuclear power may exist, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.

Problems I have with nuclear weapon theory:

1.  We went from theory to application in a very, very, short amount of time.  Enrichment of U-235 to weapons grade was not only achieved incredibly fast, but the methods of refining were also produce incredibly fast.

2.  Classification of nuclear technologies.  If it is fake, no one that really knows for sure can ever tell the truth about the subject, period.

3.  The world at the time was being bombarded with more propaganda than imaginable.  Think about watching war film on the TV day in and day out, seeing it in the news papers, hearing it on the radio, at work, everywhere.  They could have declared aliens landed in Alaska and everyone would have bought every last word of it.  People aren't skeptical during turmoil, it's all knee jerk reaction.

4.  'Evidence' of the blasts in Japan could be attributable to any number of bombs.  How do you know it was done by one bomb?  You don't.  How do you know the bomb(s) was dropped from a single plane?  You don't.  How do you know how big the blast radius was?  You don't.

5.  Why in god's name would you trust ANYTHING that came out of the FDR administration?  Japanese internment camps, court packing, making gold illegal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 ), dragging us into the second world war, new deal and socialist agenda in general.

Sure, believe the man that made owning gold illegal (by executive order, which in and of itself is illegal).  And while you're at it, why don't you go live in a government camp somewhere it's safe.

Are we arguing the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII or the general existence of nuclear bombs?

If this is about the existence of these bombs, I'd love for someone to explain the following video if there are no such weapons:



If this is about the bombing of Japan, ignore the video and let me say that I agree with this:

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

Are we arguing the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII or the general existence of nuclear bombs?

If this is about the existence of these bombs, I'd love for someone to explain the following video if there are no such weapons:



If this is about the bombing of Japan, ignore the video and let me say that I agree with this:

Quote from: malashenko on March 14, 2010, 06:05:49 PM

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

Uh... It's a Propaganda video. It's there to boost morale, not to present scientifically factual info.

The fact that it shows planes dropping a ground detonated bomb is a pretty large hint that the video is far from factual. or that they got their lies mixed up half way through.

Actually the video does not show a ground detonated bomb, in so far as what you can see on the video anyway. So your assertion is flawed. Also, the Tsar Bomba detonation was detected and confirmed by a number of independent monitoring stations. But I suppose those are all part of the conspiracy huh? Sigh.

Actually the video does not show a ground detonated bomb, in so far as what you can see on the video anyway. So your assertion is flawed. Also, the Tsar Bomba detonation was detected and confirmed by a number of independent monitoring stations. But I suppose those are all part of the conspiracy huh? Sigh.

Uh.... The Tsar Bomba was a ground detonated bomb.

The video showed one dropped from a plane. Hence my assertion that the video is entirely misleading due to either intentionally lying or a fuckup down the road in trying to keep their lies straight.

Oh wow, "independent monitoring stations" all picked up a "bomb going off" when they were told a bomb was going off? Good for them. I wonder what their funding would look like if they couldn't detect the things they were supposed to detect.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 26, 2010, 03:46:39 PM

Actually the video does not show a ground detonated bomb, in so far as what you can see on the video anyway. So your assertion is flawed. Also, the Tsar Bomba detonation was detected and confirmed by a number of independent monitoring stations. But I suppose those are all part of the conspiracy huh? Sigh.

Uh.... The Tsar Bomba was a ground detonated bomb.

The video showed one dropped from a plane. Hence my assertion that the video is entirely misleading due to either intentionally lying or a fuckup down the road in trying to keep their lies straight.

Oh wow, "independent monitoring stations" all picked up a "bomb going off" when they were told a bomb was going off? Good for them. I wonder what their funding would look like if they couldn't detect the things they were supposed to detect.

The bomb was designed to detonate at 4km (2,5 mil) height and it did.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 26, 2010, 03:46:39 PM

Actually the video does not show a ground detonated bomb, in so far as what you can see on the video anyway. So your assertion is flawed. Also, the Tsar Bomba detonation was detected and confirmed by a number of independent monitoring stations. But I suppose those are all part of the conspiracy huh? Sigh.

Uh.... The Tsar Bomba was a ground detonated bomb.

The video showed one dropped from a plane. Hence my assertion that the video is entirely misleading due to either intentionally lying or a fuckup down the road in trying to keep their lies straight.

Oh wow, "independent monitoring stations" all picked up a "bomb going off" when they were told a bomb was going off? Good for them. I wonder what their funding would look like if they couldn't detect the things they were supposed to detect.

Most, if not all, of the seismic stations had no idea it was going to happen (things like nuclear tests being generally secret and all till the time of the event), but picked up a seismic event just the same. And the other poster is correct that you would not detonate a nuke of that size (or any really) at ground level.  Read up a bit on how they are actually deployed before you get so smarmy.

I don't think nuclear weapons exist.  Nuclear power may exist, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.

Problems I have with nuclear weapon theory:

1.  We went from theory to application in a very, very, short amount of time.  Enrichment of U-235 to weapons grade was not only achieved incredibly fast, but the methods of refining were also produce incredibly fast.

2.  Classification of nuclear technologies.  If it is fake, no one that really knows for sure can ever tell the truth about the subject, period.

3.  The world at the time was being bombarded with more propaganda than imaginable.  Think about watching war film on the TV day in and day out, seeing it in the news papers, hearing it on the radio, at work, everywhere.  They could have declared aliens landed in Alaska and everyone would have bought every last word of it.  People aren't skeptical during turmoil, it's all knee jerk reaction.

4.  'Evidence' of the blasts in Japan could be attributable to any number of bombs.  How do you know it was done by one bomb?  You don't.  How do you know the bomb(s) was dropped from a single plane?  You don't.  How do you know how big the blast radius was?  You don't.

5.  Why in god's name would you trust ANYTHING that came out of the FDR administration?  Japanese internment camps, court packing, making gold illegal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 ), dragging us into the second world war, new deal and socialist agenda in general.

Sure, believe the man that made owning gold illegal (by executive order, which in and of itself is illegal).  And while you're at it, why don't you go live in a government camp somewhere it's safe.

Proof of the nuclear weapon's existence has already been shown, and I reiterate: it would have been impossible to launch large-scale air attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because there weren't enough aircraft stationed near the Home Islands to cause that kind of devastation that quickly. Even the most powerful conventional bombs only had the side-effect of creating firestorms that would not have resulted in complete destruction of the city. Tokyo was bombed for much longer than Dresden with more aircraft and yet the majority of its infrastructure was still intact by war's end. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had eyewitnesses to confirm the bombing, and also the necessary airpower to wipe out both cities within a day (much less than that for an A-bomb) was simply not present.

Are we arguing the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII or the general existence of nuclear bombs?

If this is about the existence of these bombs, I'd love for someone to explain the following video if there are no such weapons:



If this is about the bombing of Japan, ignore the video and let me say that I agree with this:

Quote from: malashenko on March 14, 2010, 06:05:49 PM

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

Oh yeah?!  Check this out: 
Looks more realistic than the video you posted.  Sure, not as grainy, and not doesn't have the 'discovery' logo on it, but looks real enough to me.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 07:56:55 PM

I don't think nuclear weapons exist.  Nuclear power may exist, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.

Problems I have with nuclear weapon theory:

1.  We went from theory to application in a very, very, short amount of time.  Enrichment of U-235 to weapons grade was not only achieved incredibly fast, but the methods of refining were also produce incredibly fast.

2.  Classification of nuclear technologies.  If it is fake, no one that really knows for sure can ever tell the truth about the subject, period.

3.  The world at the time was being bombarded with more propaganda than imaginable.  Think about watching war film on the TV day in and day out, seeing it in the news papers, hearing it on the radio, at work, everywhere.  They could have declared aliens landed in Alaska and everyone would have bought every last word of it.  People aren't skeptical during turmoil, it's all knee jerk reaction.

4.  'Evidence' of the blasts in Japan could be attributable to any number of bombs.  How do you know it was done by one bomb?  You don't.  How do you know the bomb(s) was dropped from a single plane?  You don't.  How do you know how big the blast radius was?  You don't.

5.  Why in god's name would you trust ANYTHING that came out of the FDR administration?  Japanese internment camps, court packing, making gold illegal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 ), dragging us into the second world war, new deal and socialist agenda in general.

Sure, believe the man that made owning gold illegal (by executive order, which in and of itself is illegal).  And while you're at it, why don't you go live in a government camp somewhere it's safe.

Proof of the nuclear weapon's existence has already been shown, and I reiterate: it would have been impossible to launch large-scale air attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because there weren't enough aircraft stationed near the Home Islands to cause that kind of devastation that quickly. Even the most powerful conventional bombs only had the side-effect of creating firestorms that would not have resulted in complete destruction of the city. Tokyo was bombed for much longer than Dresden with more aircraft and yet the majority of its infrastructure was still intact by war's end. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had eyewitnesses to confirm the bombing, and also the necessary airpower to wipe out both cities within a day (much less than that for an A-bomb) was simply not present.

Because clearly you have the records of strategic asset placement during that time period.  Oh, that's right, you have no clue.  Now, 'refute' the rest of my points please.

Quote from: Friedrich on March 25, 2010, 08:15:52 PM

Are we arguing the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII or the general existence of nuclear bombs?

If this is about the existence of these bombs, I'd love for someone to explain the following video if there are no such weapons:



If this is about the bombing of Japan, ignore the video and let me say that I agree with this:

Quote from: malashenko on March 14, 2010, 06:05:49 PM

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

Oh yeah?!  Check this out: 
Looks more realistic than the video you posted.  Sure, not as grainy, and not doesn't have the 'discovery' logo on it, but looks real enough to me.

Stop being dense. The video I showed involves footage from 1961. Comparing it to a rather recent movie and it's special effects is nonsense.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 27, 2010, 08:08:06 PM

Quote from: Friedrich on March 25, 2010, 08:15:52 PM

Are we arguing the bombs dropped on Japan in WWII or the general existence of nuclear bombs?

If this is about the existence of these bombs, I'd love for someone to explain the following video if there are no such weapons:



If this is about the bombing of Japan, ignore the video and let me say that I agree with this:

Quote from: malashenko on March 14, 2010, 06:05:49 PM

The fact is that a fire bombing campaign would have required a lot more aircraft, and to claim it was the result of conventional bombing would diminish the purpose of dropping the atomic bomb葉hat the US had the capacity to erase an entire city with a single weapon. Japanese civilians were well aware of the dangers of fire bombing, and yet they were planning to resist right up until the announcement of surrender. Trying to keep the existence of nuclear weapons secret was actually a goal of America right up until they were dropped, so it wouldn't make any sense if they didn't exist. Realistically this is just as impossible to lie about as the supposed conspiracy to keep the earth's shape a lie.

Oh yeah?!  Check this out: 
Looks more realistic than the video you posted.  Sure, not as grainy, and not doesn't have the 'discovery' logo on it, but looks real enough to me.

Stop being dense. The video I showed involves footage from 1961. Comparing it to a rather recent movie and it's special effects is nonsense.

Okay, okay.  This video wins the argument then: 
Looks every bit of real, has epic sound track, and was released in 1960.  Crop out the movie studio intro, bam, it's real.

No, it does not win the argument. Do the same thing I did and read up on the things other people link you as evidence. The Bomb detonated in 1961 left huge stretches of land devastated and was messured by independent sources all over the world (see EireEngineers posts).

Even if your video had special effects comparable to what we see of the bomb detonating, which it has not, we have other evidence to confirm the existence of the bomb.

Quote from: malashenko on March 27, 2010, 02:22:05 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 25, 2010, 07:56:55 PM

I don't think nuclear weapons exist.  Nuclear power may exist, but I haven't really looked into it that deeply.

Problems I have with nuclear weapon theory:

1.  We went from theory to application in a very, very, short amount of time.  Enrichment of U-235 to weapons grade was not only achieved incredibly fast, but the methods of refining were also produce incredibly fast.

2.  Classification of nuclear technologies.  If it is fake, no one that really knows for sure can ever tell the truth about the subject, period.

3.  The world at the time was being bombarded with more propaganda than imaginable.  Think about watching war film on the TV day in and day out, seeing it in the news papers, hearing it on the radio, at work, everywhere.  They could have declared aliens landed in Alaska and everyone would have bought every last word of it.  People aren't skeptical during turmoil, it's all knee jerk reaction.

4.  'Evidence' of the blasts in Japan could be attributable to any number of bombs.  How do you know it was done by one bomb?  You don't.  How do you know the bomb(s) was dropped from a single plane?  You don't.  How do you know how big the blast radius was?  You don't.

5.  Why in god's name would you trust ANYTHING that came out of the FDR administration?  Japanese internment camps, court packing, making gold illegal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102 ), dragging us into the second world war, new deal and socialist agenda in general.

Sure, believe the man that made owning gold illegal (by executive order, which in and of itself is illegal).  And while you're at it, why don't you go live in a government camp somewhere it's safe.

Proof of the nuclear weapon's existence has already been shown, and I reiterate: it would have been impossible to launch large-scale air attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima because there weren't enough aircraft stationed near the Home Islands to cause that kind of devastation that quickly. Even the most powerful conventional bombs only had the side-effect of creating firestorms that would not have resulted in complete destruction of the city. Tokyo was bombed for much longer than Dresden with more aircraft and yet the majority of its infrastructure was still intact by war's end. Nagasaki and Hiroshima had eyewitnesses to confirm the bombing, and also the necessary airpower to wipe out both cities within a day (much less than that for an A-bomb) was simply not present.

Because clearly you have the records of strategic asset placement during that time period.  Oh, that's right, you have no clue.  Now, 'refute' the rest of my points please.

To clear up the question of how many planes were in the area:
334 B-29 bombers participated in the attack on Tokyo that created a firestorm. This was the largest bombing campaign of the Pacific theater, and the entire force flew to bomb Tokyo. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima was on August 15, 1945. In August the B-29 missions were averaging around 70 planes per mission. To create a firestorm the equivalent of Tokyo's, they would have needed to send ~300 B-29s to attack Hiroshima, but since 70 of them are verified at Tokyo, and 60 were rearming because of the Aug. 7 bombing run, that leaves 204 planes. 204 planes would not have been capable of causing the destruction wrought by a nuclear weapon, even the entire force's run didn't do that in Tokyo. A firestorm would not have been possible under the circumstances, so the overall damage done by the bombing would have been moderate at best. And it wouldn't have wiped out the civilians, as conventional bombing is easily detectable and avoidable compared with a single nuclear attack.

Add to that the glaring fact that eyewitness accounts of pilots and people in Hiroshima don't match up with a massive top-secret bombing run, and it's clear that the only possibility is that a nuclear weapon was used.

I can't dispute what you're saying here, but you have to look at it from a purely conspirator perspective.

If a nuclear bomb didn't exist, the government would ultimately lie about every single detail.  They'd say they had 1 bomb, 1 plane, per mission.
You can't hear high altitude bombers, and if it's cloudy, you can't see them.  With radar, a vast fleet of high altitude bombers could drop as many bombs as they wanted, all at once, if they so desired.

Am I saying this is exactly what happened?  No, but I think it's one of many alternative possibilities. 
I truly believe that the photos and videos I've seen so far are easily forge-able in technologies of that day.
I would put absolutely nothing past the Administration of that day.  Power grabbers.  You just have to look at the over all political climate of the day, and of the modern world.
If you don't believe your government lies to you, well, you probably have lower blood pressure than I do, lol.

I can't dispute what you're saying here, but you have to look at it from a purely conspirator perspective.

If a nuclear bomb didn't exist, the government would ultimately lie about every single detail.  They'd say they had 1 bomb, 1 plane, per mission.
You can't hear high altitude bombers, and if it's cloudy, you can't see them.  With radar, a vast fleet of high altitude bombers could drop as many bombs as they wanted, all at once, if they so desired.

Am I saying this is exactly what happened?  No, but I think it's one of many alternative possibilities. 
I truly believe that the photos and videos I've seen so far are easily forge-able in technologies of that day.
I would put absolutely nothing past the Administration of that day.  Power grabbers.  You just have to look at the over all political climate of the day, and of the modern world.
If you don't believe your government lies to you, well, you probably have lower blood pressure than I do, lol.

But that still doesn't account for the numerous personal accounts, medical records, and other documents which show things like how many people received full body burns. If a firestorm wasn't created there would be no way for them to experience full body burns while outside of the city, but in many instances this was the norm.

But then why would the US be shocked into action when the USSR developed their A-bomb in '49? Why would any number of geopolitical situations occurred if there was no real bomb?

Of course governments lie, but there are times when you have to trust authority or you keep running around in circles, chasing weird conspiracies. Most people simply lack the time and energy to see the illuminati behind every shadow, plotting some farfetched strategy to do god knows what.

We could easily forge the video I showed you today. Back then? No. Add to this that the video is only part of a body of evidence and I can't see anything pointing against it, besides extreme paranoia.

That is why I showed you that other video, which was a hollywood movie.  I didn't see anything any more spectacular in your video than in mine, and they were made from the same era.

All the burn victims, etc....You underestimate the near limitless resources of the governments that would have to be involved in pulling this off.
A few government plants (people, not plant plants), total control of the surround area, limitless funding for actors and cinema, planes, etc.

I mean, hell, we're even accepting the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually bombed at all.  What if they weren't?

You've never worked for the US government if you haven't had someone literally say "This is what happened.  Now sign it."
It's not optional, and you can't talk about it.  For all intents and purposes, it happened, and you said it did by signing it.

That is why I showed you that other video, which was a hollywood movie.  I didn't see anything any more spectacular in your video than in mine, and they were made from the same era.

All the burn victims, etc....You underestimate the near limitless resources of the governments that would have to be involved in pulling this off.
A few government plants (people, not plant plants), total control of the surround area, limitless funding for actors and cinema, planes, etc.

I mean, hell, we're even accepting the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually bombed at all.  What if they weren't?

You've never worked for the US government if you haven't had someone literally say "This is what happened.  Now sign it."
It's not optional, and you can't talk about it.  For all intents and purposes, it happened, and you said it did by signing it.

Ok, but the US wasn't the first on-scene at the Hiroshima bombings憂apan was. They had no reason to fake the existence of the bomb, and if they knew the US didn't possess such a weapon then they would do anything to discredit them. The only reason Japan surrendered was because they feared further deployment of nuclear arms; they were preparing to commit mass suicides and fight to the last man.

Okay, let me accept (for the sake of argument, though I still disagree) that the video I showed you was forged by the Soviets.
Explain 2 things to me:

1. How did independant sources all over the world register the bomb exploding? (Keep in mind that the test was secret, so they were not warned)

2. How do you explain that the flash of the explosion was visible up to 1.000 km away?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 28, 2010, 01:44:19 AM

That is why I showed you that other video, which was a hollywood movie.  I didn't see anything any more spectacular in your video than in mine, and they were made from the same era.

All the burn victims, etc....You underestimate the near limitless resources of the governments that would have to be involved in pulling this off.
A few government plants (people, not plant plants), total control of the surround area, limitless funding for actors and cinema, planes, etc.

I mean, hell, we're even accepting the idea that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually bombed at all.  What if they weren't?

You've never worked for the US government if you haven't had someone literally say "This is what happened.  Now sign it."
It's not optional, and you can't talk about it.  For all intents and purposes, it happened, and you said it did by signing it.

Ok, but the US wasn't the first on-scene at the Hiroshima bombings憂apan was. They had no reason to fake the existence of the bomb, and if they knew the US didn't possess such a weapon then they would do anything to discredit them. The only reason Japan surrendered was because they feared further deployment of nuclear arms; they were preparing to commit mass suicides and fight to the last man.

Maybe they needed an exit strategy and were happy to play along.  Win, Win.
Of course, we're talking about imperial japan, one of the most sadistic and subversive governments in history.  They wouldn't do ANYTHING like that, would they?
They used to take female civilian POWs and send them as prostitutes to the front lines.  The convinced people to commit suicide by kamikaze.  They were notorious for being ruthless killers of POWs.
The Japanese people they had the power of the gods behind them in the form of the Emperor.  They needed something strong to be snapped out of war mode.

Okay, let me accept (for the sake of argument, though I still disagree) that the video I showed you was forged by the Soviets.
Explain 2 things to me:

1. How did independant sources all over the world register the bomb exploding? (Keep in mind that the test was secret, so they were not warned)

2. How do you explain that the flash of the explosion was visible up to 1.000 km away?

Answers. You have them?

Quote from: Friedrich on March 28, 2010, 01:54:00 AM

Okay, let me accept (for the sake of argument, though I still disagree) that the video I showed you was forged by the Soviets.
Explain 2 things to me:

1. How did independant sources all over the world register the bomb exploding? (Keep in mind that the test was secret, so they were not warned)

2. How do you explain that the flash of the explosion was visible up to 1.000 km away?

Answers. You have them?

1.  You made a claim, didn't back it up with anything.

2.  You made a claim, didn't back it up with anything.

Where are these accounts you speak of?